but Wolfram, we had a consensus that involved adding language about policy to the board - THAT in all previous occurances has been something we vote on.

It has? Figuring out a change in policy has required a vote, unless there is a clear consensus. Codifying that consensus into language - not the same thing. We made a number of changes to the FAQ last year that didn't require a single vote. If everyone is on the same page - why go through the aggravation. It's like drafting by committee.

I'd rather not see a vote at all. I'd like to see a trend of issues in LB not having to be voted on all the time. Voting to me seems like a last resort - a necessary evil. Like the kids couldn't settle it themselves on the playground and had to get the teacher to sort it out. It kills me that we seemed to have a real consensus from both sides of this issue, yet folks still want to vote on it just because we can.

This. Plus, voting gives this issue more legitimacy than I think it deserves. I'd prefer a vote to see if it should go to a vote, but failing that level of stupidity, I'd rather see the consensus that was established, acted upon.

ETA: Hold the phone! I like *this* best!

Personally, I think this issue can be solved by people exercising their right to use the block feature.

Also I'm with ND about (not) setting precedents on what we vote on. The less we legislate behavior and humor on this board, the better.

Again, I think we can make changes to Etiquette by consensus.

Changes to Policy by vote.

I think we should deal with this as an Etiquette question.

Figuring out a change in policy has required a vote, unless there is a clear consensus.

I could be wrong and welcome finding when this happened, but I think that once the voting was approved in 2/2003 - that we have voted on all policy changes.

We made a number of changes to the FAQ last year that didn't require a single vote. If everyone is on the same page - why go through the aggravation. It's like drafting by committee.

We any of those changes dealing with policy or procedures on the board? Because I looked and I couldn't find ones that were.

I'd rather not see a vote at all. I'd like to see a trend of issues in LB not having to be voted on all the time. Voting to me seems like a last resort - a necessary evil. Like the kids couldn't settle it themselves on the playground and had to get the teacher to sort it out. It kills me that we seemed to have a real consensus from both sides of this issue, yet folks still want to vote on it just because we can.

Yeah. t still watching the debate though it seemed settled very amicably last night

There seems to be a semantics thing here. msbelle, you see this as a policy change, yes? And ND, you see it as an etiquette change, right?

David - what are policies and where are they identified?

I'm very confused. I get that some people think we should vote on this policy/etiquette change. But is anyone against asking multiple-IDed users to put their "real" ID in their profile?

Isn't that all Betsy's latest proposal says?

Personally, I think this issue can be solved by people exercising their right to use the block feature.

Would you please show me how to preemptively block every sockpuppet anyone will think of and all posts made in conversations involving them, without blocking anything else? Because my block function won't do that.

But that's a "this annoys me" issue, and I agree that we shouldn't vote to ban things entirely because they annoy people. My more serious concern, the possibility of trolling through a sockpuppet, is addressed by requesting/requiring that secondary logins have a note in the profile saying who's doing the typing. So that's what I would vote for, if it is on the ballot.