'Conviction (1)'
We open it up, we talks the talk, we votes, we shuts it down. This thread is to free up Bureaucracy for daily details as we hammer out the Big Issues towards a vote. Open only when a proposal has been made and seconded according to Buffista policy (Which we voted on!). If this thread is closed, hie thee to Bureaucracy instead!
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.
What year did the only known example of this activity take place?
Who was it (amych? Plei?) who said something like Buffistas are constitutionally unable to take the piss.
It probably was me:
shrift: It is a truth universally acknowledged that Buffistas are incapable of taking the piss.
What year did the only known example of this activity take place?
That's beside the point, John -- it could happen again at any date.
Are you saying you have a serious objection to asking that secondary logins identify themselves in the profile?
Lyra Jane - you couldn't pre-emptively block a sockpuppet anymore than you can pre-emptively block a new poster who you will find annoying. I never meant to suggest that. I just meant that as soon as it seems clear to you that they are a sockpuppet or as soon as they annoy you then you can block them and no longer deal with the annoyance.
But is anyone against asking multiple-IDed users to put their "real" ID in their profile?I'm not against it, but I'm against codifying it, and I can't explain why. I'm not terribly against codifying it, mind you. It just feels funny. We're regulating what precautions people have to take, before they make a joke. That squicks me.
We're regulating what precautions people have to take, before they make a joke.
This.
shrift: It is a truth universally acknowledged that Buffistas are incapable of taking the piss.That's the one! I adore that.
Cindy, can you Nilly your rewrite of the proposal?
msbelle, I got that. I was probably being more sarcastic than I needed to be in this case.
To me, "just block them" is the same as "just scroll." It's probably about the only advice that can be given short of a total ban on secondary logins, but it still isn't very satisfying.
Are you saying you have a serious objection to asking that secondary logins identify themselves in the profile?
I'm saying I have a problem with the thinking behind it.
That's beside the point, John -- it could happen again at any date.
It's exactly my point, Lyra. The board has the tools available to deal with it, should it happen again, and one occasion of anything is not something to legislate for. I appreciate that a malicious troll is a serious occasion, but the "differences in humour" reason that dragged this issue over to this side of the board and got it some support, is a different issue than a "malicious troll" issue and it feels like one issue is being stabbed from behind the arras, using the other.
We're regulating what precautions people have to take, before they make a joke. That squicks me.
or, what Cindy said.