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.

Interrupting Communist Cow

Didn't somebody pull out a BIG STOMPY FOOT once, or was that just an admin or the admin account gussied up?

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.

That works for me.

There is no Big Stompy Foot.

Clovis, Ferret Liberation Whatever, Remote Controlled Zombie Robots.

Ok. I guess I wasnt' counting those - have we heard from any of them in a year or more?

It's not important, I'm just trying to figure out why this issue exploded all of a sudden. I think if Universe hadn't said anything about being a newbie (which I think was just a riff on the whole "long-time listener, first-time caller thing) we maybe would've saved ourself some stress. OTOH, it never really occurred to me that SPs as we've seen them would be anything more than an annoyance to people who don't care for them, so it's just as well.

Oh good, a social capital discussion.

To me "social capital" is just a way of saying "how people function around each other." or "a feeling people get towards each other based on their relative social skills and relationship." It's part of everything I do - acting one way with a group of close friends and knowing that it would be inappropriate to act that same way at work or on the subway.

And it boggles my mind that people are actually worried about a theoretical poster's fear to speak up. If a person is afraid to post because of how they will be received (and not because they are just a shy or socially fearful person- which is just how some people are), rest assured that someone in this community will stand up to defend you. You can be a liar, insane, widely inappropriate (in my opinion) and someone will get in your corner and try to rally the troops to your defence.

____

In ref to the proposal - my concern is that if we are adding anything more than clairfication to the info about "how to register" (FAQ & How-to) or choosing to add in the text from the Law-Speak document on the registration info (FYI, this text was devceloped before voting was proposed and adopted):

Choose your user name at your own risk. Excessive cheekiness will be kept in check. Betsy: "I think an appropriate policy would be "If you claim to be somebody famous, we'll ask you to prove it." Betsy: "Parodying other people's names (whether real or adopted) is tacky. We ask that you don't do it." ita: "Stompy Feet reserve the rights to pooh pooh any name, but we'll explain why [in private email, and ask you to choose another name]." This policy also covers potentially offensive names, like "fuckface", and names too similar to real famous people, current users, and former users.

THEN, we really should vote. Nothing policy-wise has been added to the FAQ or etiquette with out a vote. The grandfather clause vote covered some things (like the above) which are agreed upon rules of the commuinity, but to be fair, many of them are not covered in the FAQ or Etiquette and so no one new would really know about them.