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.)

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?

What does "generally discouraging the use" of sock puppets mean

I see it as "every third post across the board shouldn't be from an SP; indulging in a secret identity is OK in small doses; obnoxiousness is no one's friend, and give people a way to find out whose hand is stuck in your back."

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.

JZ is both wise, and on these subjects, me (not in a sockpuppet way, though). And I'm totally OK with consensing rather than voting. The only sockpuppet that's remotely pinged me was "The Universe" (other than Anathema which I see as a wholey different situation), mainly because the initial post looked so much like a real de-lurk that I couldn't tell it was a joke. I guess in retrospect, I get the creepy vibe some people got from "March", but it fit so well into the ongoing bitch-fest about March (of which Kristin and I were the most vociferous) that it didn't even blip my radar as wrong.