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.

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.

Neither side can see the other point of view.

Except, you know, that the bothered people have all said "Yeah, if you cop to it in the profile, I can cope." I haven't heard anybody say that this harshes their mellow.

Just to clarify, the profile cop is intended for joke logins, right? And we're cool with the limited privacy logins already discussed, as is, right?

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.

The issue was not really difference of humor, it was IDing posters. No one suggested that the current sockpuppets were trolls. People want to be able to ID sockpuppets or any other multiple log-ins.