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.
Heh. Yeah, but you're a real life sock puppet, Frank--or I am, or something.
I don't mean to imply that I think this is a pressing issue. I don't.
I like to address things when there is no pressing issue -- makes it so much easier to think about things in the abstract.
That's my thought too, Jesse. But it can wait until after the current discussion.
I ask because I think of the How-To, Etiquette, and to a much lesser degree the FAQ as our rules pages.
Which seems to indicate that, if there is to be any change to the FAQ itself, you want it to be voted upon.
But there have already been consensed changes to the FAQ without voting, yes?
So as a procedural matter, I think I understand what happens when it is decided to not vote on the matter formally and make it a matter of consensus, but still abide by the voting rules. The key element is simply that the original proposer (Betsy) withdraws her proposal after Lightbulbs has been open for it's requisite four days and everybody has had a chance to discuss the issue.
We can also work on the exact wording (as we're doing) for inclusion in the FAQ and etiquette guides. Ultimately it goes back to Bureau, and it would probably be worthwhile to post a notice saying the community has clarified this issue.
One question on it though: When a proposal is withdrawn, does the six month moratorium still apply? That is, if somebody really felt strongly that this needed a vote rather than a consensus could they repropose it? I'm not clear on that element.
Otherwise though, I'm very happy to see this hammered out in a compromise which clarifies our stance on the issue, provides some guidelines and expectations and accomodates both sides.
