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.
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.)
I don't see any reason we need to vote as a result of opening the thread, but if
any
decisions are to be made as a result of the discussion, the discussion has to run until midnight of the fourth day of discussion. Which means we're barely started.
People can stop talking, if they'd like, but the forum for discussion remains open.
That's not a thing.
I believe that those who have created alternate addresses did not intend to offend.
With the exception of Anathema/Mieskie, I'd say.
And um, I'd weigh in on the consensed proposal, except I am not at all clear on what it is. People keep saying that it is to identify the puppeteer in the profile, but is there more to it than that?
One vote per IP address (or however that stuff is tracked) wouldn't work because we do have multiple-Buffista households.
Ooh, yes, that's correct.
I think that's pretty much it, Burrell.
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.
I'm with Laura.
Also, how would we theoretically stop people from creating multiple logins? Other than saying "if we catch you, you're fwapped?"
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.
What does "generally discouraging the use" of sock puppets mean? Does it mean that you shouldn't create a sock puppet just because you're bored, but if you think of a really funny or clever use for one, then it's OK? Or that we want to keep the total level of sock puppetry low, so if a sock puppet has posted recently, another sock puppet shouldn't join in, but if there's been a long sock puppet dry spell then it's OK?
