"You know, Beej, we're cool. For the record."

You would have said this then, ya mean?

You came on the scene...with no quac diving...almost immediately after. Nicely done.

eta: Okay, I meant to reference 'guacamole', not some unused four letter word which could mean the sound a duck makes under water...or something.

I much prefer Cindy's rewrite to my original.

You would have said this then, ya mean?

Oh, I probably would have. I was referring to right now, after your post.

I mostly lurk, so I have practically no social capital. However, I like Cindy's rewrite too.

Oh d, I think quiet people get a lot of social capital because each of the unquiet are Certain you Agree With Us.

I much prefer Cindy's rewrite to my original.

Oh Betsy, thank you. I think if it goes FAQward, we're going to need a question, and I don't know if it should be tweaked a little to make it clear it's a rare thing. I didn't want to make it any longer than I already had.

I don't know if it should be tweaked a little to make it clear it's a rare thing

This is my concern with documenting sockpuppetry in the FAQ/Rules/Etiquette. This is a very rare thing that I have enjoyed in the past, but it wouldn't be so enjoyable if it were to become a frequent occurrence. No, I don't have wording to offer, but it does need to be clear.

I think we need to say something in the FAQ or somewhere, just because I am uncomfortable with the idea of having a community standard for sockpuppetry that is understood by everyone who read this discussion but isn't made explicit anywhere for those who have not, whether it's because they stay away from Lightbulbs and B'cracy or because they simply haven't discovered their Buffistaness yet. I like Cindy's wording.

This is my concern with documenting sockpuppetry in the FAQ/Rules/Etiquette. This is a very rare thing that I have enjoyed in the past, but it wouldn't be so enjoyable if it were to become a frequent occurrence. No, I don't have wording to offer, but it does need to be clear.

I understand, and agree. That's part of why I would prefer we drop it altogether, Laura. Then, if/when it happens, it could be treated as an exceptional event, and we'd only have to get involved (as a community as a whole) if the sock puppets were being abusive.

Right now, I think it is a joke some people love, some people hate, and some people think is funny, sometimes. I don't think codifying it is going to be helpful enough to make it worth it, and I'm not sure why we are going to, since we already have procedures in place to handle abusive incidents. I hate to see us legislating what comes down to taste.

Oh, good. Not just me. This was my worry - that by adding it to the FAQ, we actually end up suggesting SP's in a roundabout way.*

I am uncomfortable with the idea of having a community standard for sockpuppetry that is understood by everyone who read this discussion but isn't made explicit anywhere for those who have not, whether it's because they stay away from Lightbulbs and B'cracy or because they simply haven't discovered their Buffistaness yet.

I get that, but I'm not sure that in this case, a post in Press for those of us around here along with explaining the consensed decision to any newbies who happen to pull one out might not be the best option.

*Kind of off topic question: I don't mind the SPs I've seen, and even when I haven't figured out who they are I thought they were pretty funny for the most part. But the conversation is making me wonder - aside from the recent March/Universe thingy, have I missed a whole bunch? Or is it just that they don't ping me?

Off the top of my head -- God, March, Universe, Clovis, Ferret Liberation Whatever, Remote Controlled Zombie Robots. Not counting Sang Sacre denizens.