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.

I think that's pretty much it, Burrell.

So it's just "please do this, thanks," and there's no mechanism for a stompy response if someone decides not to self-identify? In other words, we're just consensing on a matter of etiquette, not a change in policy?

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.

Agreed. It looks to me like the consensus so far is to not make this an actual change in policy. Or am I misreading?

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 one of the very vocal haters, and FTR, I can live with identifying oneself in the user profile or tagline. That way I can be sure I don't MARCIE a newly-for-real delurked person.

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.

There already is a baseline. If one Buffista wants the matter settled enough to propose, and four Buffistas agree enough to second it (that is, agree it should be settled, regardless of their stance on the proposal itself) it goes for a vote. If not enough people can be arsed to vote (is our MVT 42?), it is settled by apathy. If enough Buffistas vote, it is settled by the results of the vote. If, as a result of the discussion, the proposer decides it wasn't worth it, s/he can let the proposal die without going to a vote.

Betsy,

I am glad you brought this up for a vote, because I think it is more healthy for us to settle an issue like this (at least for six months at a time) than it is to pick, and pick, and pick at a scab.

Thank you for making this proposal. As far as I'm concerned, this is why we started voting--to let it out, and get over it, whatever "it" is, at the time.

...

RE the Proposal itself:

If it goes to ballot, I am going to vote no on this the proposal, because I think we already have rules to deal with the problems that might arise with sock puppet accounts.

I have no intention of using a sock puppet again. I was only "The Lurkers in Email..." to be funny. But when I continued to use the name, under the mistaken impression that everyone had seen where I'd said it was me, in one of the threads, I understandably upset people. When I found out it upset people, I was embarrassed, and in the ensuing discussion both felt and acted like a jerk. I was also hurt, because I was not aware of any objection to Clovis, and whatever other puppets were registered before I registered the Lurkers one.

Legislating against sock puppets, while making allowances for a Buffista who needs anonymity, and for the Role Players in Sang Sacre, is too close to saying only certain Buffistas get to play, as far as I'm concerned. Since any of us could get a webmail account, register another name, and post from the library or whatever, a Sock Puppet rule provides no protection from actual trolls, so it isn't worth supporting the instituion of a rule.

The rule would only stops jokes which some find funny, and others find rude. Don't virtually *all* of the jokes here tickle some of us, and bother others? I'd rather we just handle this sort of thing in thread. We are adults. We can decide when any joke bugs enough to speak up, and when it is better to scroll on by. And we can decide when to humor someone's objections, and when to scroll on by those, as well, individually. Also? We now have the "Block" feature.

When they were posting, I did wish "MARCH" and "The Universe" would reveal themselves (more quickly), in part, because I was afraid someone would think it was me, again. I had no idea until this discussion, that Trudy was either. But, since "MARCH" and "The Universe", weren't being malicious, and the Buffistas to whom her posts were directed seemed to be enjoying the joke, I ignored it.

If someone uses a sockpuppet pseud, and doesn't either reveal his/her regular Buffista identity on his/her profile page, or in the tagline, or upon in-thread request, and is using the sock puppet to raise hell, we already have rules to take care of it, imo.

Consistent demon-like behavior may earn a warning from the Stompy Feet. If you don't listen to the warning, you will be suspended for two months. And if you come back unreformed, you will be banned. Banning is rare and very much a last resort. Just FYI, our back-up boards on WorldCrossing and PeoplesForum are also Buffista Zones, and are subject to the same etiquette rules as the Phoenix.

There already is a baseline. If one Buffista wants the matter settled enough to propose, and four Buffistas agree enough to second it (that is, agree it should be settled, regardless of their stance on the proposal itself) it goes for a vote. If not enough people can be arsed to vote (is our MVT 42?), it is settled by apathy. If enough Buffistas vote, it is settled by the results of the vote. If, as a result of the discussion, the proposer decides it wasn't worth it, s/he can let the proposal die without going to a vote.

I will wait to see what Betsy comes back to write out as a clarified proposal. If it is only a suggestion that the puppeteers ID themselves, then a consensus seems fine and the proposal would be pulled off the table for voting. If we wanted to add that IDing yourself either in your tag or on your profile page is board policy - then I think we need a vote, even if every poster in this thread seems to agree with it.

And just to wrap up something from last night. In case anyone is unclear on the warn/suspend/ban policy, it is:

The following procedure will be in place for taking action for unacceptable behaviour.

1. A user-complainant will try to resolve the complaint on-thread. If unsuccessful, 2. A user-complainant (does not need to be same person) will post in-thread that it's time to meet in Bureaucracy. In Bureaucracy, user-complainant will outline the complaint with linky citations, and request an Action. 3. At least 10 other users in 48 hours second the need for an Action. If 10 other users do not complain within the 48 hour period, no complaint can be made again about that particular incident, unless it is being used to illustrate, with others, a pattern of demon-like behaviour. 4. As soon as the request for action receives 10 seconds, Stompy sets forth Action.

Warnings will be in effect for four months. After four months, the slate is wiped clean.

A Warning will be notified over email, in the thread of incident, and in Bureaucracy. A Suspension will be notified over email and in Bureaucracy. A Ban will be notified by email and in Press.

Hmm.

All along this has been an Etiquette/FAQ proposal, not a formal bylaw. I agree that we need the 4-day period to discuss it.

My understanding of the bullshit consensus is the following entry in Etiquette:

"Please be aware that posting under multiple pseudonyms annoys some Buffistas. If you use more than one Buffista account for the same person, please identify yourself in the profile of the subsidiary accounts. Thus the secondary account "Zeitgeist" would have the profile entry "this is really Sign O'The Times". This helps people distinguish unlurkers from game-players."