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.

---

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

and there is nothing unamicable about this discussion or about voting.

FTR, The etiquette page has 10 bullets.

1) Read the FAQ (no rule)
2) We talk a lot. Natter in Press & Apoc will be deleted (I think a pre-voting board rule)
3) If you feel ignores, rest assured we all do...(no rule)
4) Spoiler policy (some was pre-voting, some post-voting - since voting all spoiler changes have been voted on.)
5) NAFDA rules (all pre-voting)
6) Consistant demon-like behavior....results (vote #5)
7) don't spam (pre-voting rule)
8) questions? go to Bureau (no rule)
9) think before you post, we are mostly accepting (no rule).

___

So sockpuppets were meant as a joke to some people, others were really bothered by it. Neither side can see the other point of view. SO, solution?

If the solution the board decides is to tell those who are bothered "to deal" then rest assured "deal" is gonna be like a mantra around here.

---

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?

Yup.

And I think we've bullshit-consensed on that by now. I'm not intending to propose a vote; if somebody else wants to do so, fine by me.

---