OK, Betsy. If I created a sockpuppet called "Life and Everything" (to go with The Universe), board etiquette would require me to put in my profile or tagline that "Life and Everything" is really Fred Pete in disguise.

Right.

I think it should be "Bob" and his sockpuppet should be named "Carrot Lover" but that's just me.

All along this has been an Etiquette/FAQ proposal, not a formal bylaw.

for my clarification, where are the official bylaws?

I ask because I think of the How-To, Etiquette, and to a much lesser degree the FAQ as our rules pages.

Questions:
1. How do we feel about sockpuppets?
2. Based on those feelings (in the aggregate), may we regulate sockpuppets?
3. How might this regulation be achieved? How would a violator of regulation be "caught"?
4. If we do regulate, and catch violators of regulation, what would the consequences be?
5. If we don't regulate, can sockpuppets vote?
6. Do we hafta vote on this?

Answers:
1. Many feelings here. Personally, I see sockpuppets as lying. Sometimes, lying is cute and funny and harmless. Sometimes, it really really isn't. I think it's unwise to legislate against lying across the board; but if I caught a fellow Buffista in an important lie, something that affected the board's temperature, I might invoke the disciplinary procedures and ask for a warning.

2. Based on the answer to #1, I am tending toward the side of not legislating, on basis that the disciplinary procedures can reasonably be expected to cover anything actively harmful to the board. I don't see as how we can legislate against general annoyingness; and we already have legislation against specific hurtfulness.

2A. The self-identification in profile or tag seems like a polite thing to do, though. This wording from Betsy is good to add to the Etiquette file:

"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."

3. I'm not sure how one would technically catch a determined sockpuppet. If you'll recall, one of our first sockpuppets, of the not-nice variety, was Mieskie/Schmoker, who was kicked out and re-registered under a different email, and it took weeks and weeks before someone figured it out. And that discovery was based on off-board behavior (a photo). How would we discover "illegal" sockpuppets? I don't know if we can close all the potential loopholes in our registration process without becoming crazy.

4. Consequences, well, we have Discipline already. Hurray for all that annoying procedural talk all those months ago! All hail msbelle puuuuushing that legislation to a vote!!

5. ABSOLUTELY NOT. One person, one vote. Sockpuppets are, by definition, not people; therefore, they may not vote. If you try it, and get caught, I will be there with the Discipline in hand, ready to complain. But, notice how, it's the existing Discipline, not anything new. I think we have coverage for these situations already, in the existing rules.

6. No we do not hafta vote just because we opened Lightbulb. Betsy has given notice that she is happy to withdraw the proposal; nobody else has taken it up as something that wants to vote; therefore, proposal can be withdrawn without tongue-waggling, as per Cheesebutt, and we can just all be consensuary and in agreeance.

Speaking of the Cheesebutt (Actually I call it the Lawspeak, but am open to other names), it needs an update, but once I have updated it, I think it needs to be linked all over the place, as part of the link salad at the bottoms of pages, etc. Whenever we get into one of these procedure discussions, someone always asks, "Wait, where is the Cheesebutt??" Which is what msbelle just did.

I will go talk about that in Bureaublahblah, for the sake of tidiness.

If you'll recall, one of our first sockpuppets, of the not-nice variety, was Mieskie/Schmoker, who was kicked out and re-registered under a different email, and it took weeks and weeks before someone figured it out. And that discovery was based on off-board behavior.

Even worse-- I think people had suspicions early on but it took a while to actually prove it with external evidence. But he was knowingly violating the rules by posting anyway, so it isn't so germane to the rules re: sockpuppets discussion.

The couple times I've counted votes, sockpuppets didn't vote.

5. If we don't regulate, can sockpuppets vote?

5. ABSOLUTELY NOT. One person, one vote. Sockpuppets are, by definition, not people; therefore, they may not vote. If you try it, and get caught, I will be there with the Discipline in hand, ready to complain. But, notice how, it's the existing Discipline, not anything new. I think we have coverage for these situations already, in the existing rules.

I didn't really think that sockpuppets had been voting, I just thought the possibility is something we should acknowledge.

Currently, we are relying on a combo of the honor system and that the vote-counters know who the voters are. I may be overthinking this, but we may want to discuss a procedure for the vote-counters to follow if they think a voter ID is questionable.

I've got more on this, but it should wait until after the current lightbulbs topic is resolved.

but we may want to discuss a procedure for the vote-counters to follow if they think a voter ID is questionable.

It would really only matter if the vote was enough to swing the issue, wouldn't it?

Yes. But a violation might still be something to address.

I don't mean to imply that I think this is a pressing issue. I don't.

I think it should be "Bob" and his sockpuppet should be named "Carrot Lover" but that's just me.

seconded

And thirded. Suh-nerk!

Of course, me thirding Cindy is suspect right there, but whatev.