I also think that it could be a simple addition to the registration info that doesn't even mention sock-puppets, but merely says something along the lines of "Users with multiple accounts are requested to make a note they they are the same person in the user profile"

I haven't been vocal about the entire situation/discussion because it didn't really bother me too much. The March/Universe SP's were funny because of the conversations going on in Bitches, so I didn't mind. As someone mentioned earlier, though, it can create an out-of-the-loop feeling for those who don't figure out who the real person is in other scenarios. [And honestly, because of the short time that I've been involved on chat boards, I didn't even know there was a name for it.]

In any case, I feel that the rules that are in place are adequate to deal with any problems that the SP's might cause, and by going with NoiseDesign's suggestion we are making a general statement about multiple accounts being acknowledged and not putting the specific idea of "sockpuppets" into someone's head.

I think it is inappropriate and insensitive that we continue to use the pejorative term "sockpuppet" for these discussions and suggest that we adopt the term "differently-identitied".

Either that, or Cockpuppet.

Cockpuppet.

Between that and

I'ma reiterate what I've said many times in the past: penii are weird as hell. I mean, I like them, don't get me wrong, but they're weird-looking and -- no external body part should move on its own like that, as often as it does.

I'm sensing a trend. Also, snerk.

When a sockpuppet appears I could shout "Hey Bozo! It's customary to disclose your board name in your profile," or something.

if someone said this to me, I'd say "it's not written anywhere. how the hell do you crazy b.orgers expect anyone to know what is expected?"

The whole numberslutting thing is customary around here too. Do we have a line item for that?

ND, I think our rules say that everything needs to pass with a true majority (more than 50 percent of the votes, no preference exempted). For that reason, almost every ballot we've had has been worded as yes/no choices. Which doesn't prevent Betsy from giving us three or 47 choices, should that be her wont, but it does mean that a ballot with more than two choices is less likely to have any effect.

Do we have a line item for that?

We would if we didn't want people numberslutting, Just like white-fonting.

ND, I think our rules say that everything needs to pass with a true majority (more than 50 percent of the votes, no preference exempted).

LJ are you sure about this? My spotty memory is saying the opposite, that the rules say a simple majority. And we've been doing yes/nos to avoid the problem.

ND, I think our rules say that everything needs to pass with a true majority (more than 50 percent of the votes). For that reason, almost every ballot we've had has been worded as yes/no choices. Which doesn't prevent Betsy from giving us three or 47, should that be her wont, but it does mean that a ballot with three choices is less likely to be able to change anything.

I do understand that simple ballots make getting a majority easier, but it does not make them better. I'm seeing multiple solutions to this issue and I feel strongly that we need to look at them. If we can't get a majority on it, then we need to take a closer look. I don't think that it's a good idea to keep it to a yes/no vote just in the interest of making it simpler to get a majority vote.

Well, we don't have that right now Cindy and I'm trying to work within the system here.

I know. I was hoping I could prompt the goofy laughing phase of the discussion, but I guess it can't be rushed.

...

Everyone,

I hate to see a rule made against jokes people don't like, and let me tell you, lots of days here I *know* I read the board while under the effects of a temporary humorectomy. Who was it (amych? Plei?) who said something like Buffistas are constitutionally unable to take the piss. It's true! It's true! Something that's going to have you rolling in the aisles and peeing your pants with laughter is going to hurt someone else's feelings. Since we're friends or friends of friends, and here by our own free will, I hate to see the sort of rules instituted, like one might find at a workplace, or in a school. And although I reserve the right to say, "Hey, that sucks," I would never want rules or ponts of etiquette made against, oh let's just say thread names with religious themes.

Like I said yesterday or so, I can't see myself using a sock puppet (typed 'cock puppet' and can't use one of those either, unless I'm allowed to use a finger as a substitute) again. But it hasn't been used abusively here, and I think our tradition of being rules light has largely worked for us. We take things on a case by case basis. To me, codifying this thing is just a bad idea.

I'm not saying don't vote on it. I guess I'm just campaigning for people to vote against it. I'll shut up, now.