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.

On the vote or consensus issue WRT to this topic. I have several thoughts on this.

First and foremost is that is seems to me that there should be a baseline for what needs a vote - this may not fall under that baseline, but I still think a baseline should exist. Making something a "board rule" feels like something that should be voted on.

And yes, it appears that a consensus has been reached that people agree on, but I have never liked this thread being used just to figure out if a proposal will pass or not. It's not as if taking a vote is a huge and taxing thing for the board. Once again, I am in favor of following procedures as they exist so as not to open the door for "well we didn't have a vote when we made X rule" comments in the future.

If the proposer wants to pull the proposal, that can happen, but then it seems to me, that nothing should change on the board especially wrt rules, policy, or procedure.

_______

And on another note. I would really like the items that have been voted on to be readily available to anyone wanting to check on them. Especially the procedure for making a proposal, and for the warn/suspend/ban policy.

I am willing to go through the cheesebutt document and pul out the relevant items so we have a list of votes and resulting policies.

And yes, it appears that a consensus has been reached that people agree on, but I have never liked this thread being used just to figure out if a proposal will pass or not. It's not as if taking a vote is a huge and taxing thing for the board. Once again, I am in favor of following procedures as they exist so as not to open the door for "well we didn't have a vote when we made X rule" comments in the future.

In my view, if a consensus is clear and obvious, it should be favored over a vote for the simple reason that a vote carries with it a mandatory moratorium. If an issue is so contentious that it requires a vote to keep the board quiet for six months, great, that's why we have the procedures. But if an issue seems to have worked itself out amicably, why burden it with the restrictive moratorium? If it keeps coming up again and again post-consensus (which would tend to negate whether we actually had a bonafide and not bullshit consensus) then it would become clear that a vote is needed.

I do agree with ita, that consensus or no, this thread should stay open the entire 4 days to allow everyone time to join the discussion. After which time it's up to Betsy whether to keep her proposal as is, modify it, or withdraw it without a vote.

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.

Speaking just for myself, I still wouldn't be the biggest fan of sockpuppet posting. But if there is identification in the profile, that at least cuts back on the possibility for abuse. So it goes from being something that concerns me as a matter of policy, to something I still don't like but can tolerate.

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."

What connie said, with a side of "If anyone asks you to cut it out, cut it out." But, of course, if obnoxiousness wasn't subjective we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we?

Also, I am with msbelle WRT voting. I think the proposal should probably be edited to reflect the consensus, but I do feel that changing site etiquette is the kind of thing we really should do more than consense on.

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.

I did this and I think I sent it to Nutty. It was about a million years ago, though I am not sure if she or I still have it!

(that is, a list of simple voting and banning procedures and a list of votes so far)

FTR - what the board voted on WRT to voting was:

# Item 1: VOTING

A no vote on this item signifies that the voter does not agree to a voting process to determine the community's will as it pertains to community decisions.

This passed 120 to 11.