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.