On the one hand, "please ID yourself when you sockpuppet" is a social conformity thing, like "please don't sign your post that is dorky." Somebody fails to conform, somebody else gets grumpy, the pod takes over and conformity occurs, or an argument ensues over whether conformity is required, or conformity does not ensue and sore points may spring up.

To my knowledge, non-signage of one's name to a post is not in the FAQ or Etiquette or any other rule document. On the other hand, it's a visible conformity-failure when somebody signs their posts. When somebody sockpuppets without the ID, it's not necessarily obvious that he/she is violating our happy tin-hatted conformity, confusion ensues, and you get arguments like what has been happening of late.

So, like, just for the sake of clarity, it's worthwhile to add something to Etiquette/Rules (right next to the citation of "please don't sign up as Josh Whedon that's stupid" and "please don't sign up as Fuckface that's juvenile").

For the record, we consensed about all of the above without voting on them. For the record, I am a consensetarian whenever it saves labor.

Then to re-answer my answer, I don't know where policies are as they seem to be spread out.

Right now, this seems to be the bigger issue. msbelle IDed the problem yesterday, but Aimee's response gets it in a nutshell. We have no official policy page, hence the Etiquette page functions as the closest thing we have. So there's a problem with terminology when some posters are saying "I want to treat this as an etiquette issue, not a policy issue."

Hmm. How to clarify. Perhaps the issue is, do we want a vote on whether or not to include this as a new policy in the Etiquette page, or do we just want to make it an unwritten part of the code of behavior?

I don't think the problem with sockpuppets is people feeling left out. The thing I find (mildly) distressing about sockpuppets (at least with no ID in the profile, which is always the first thing I check) is the back and forth of thinking I know who it is and then thinking that I was wrong and I don't know who it is.

The closest comparison I can make from life outside the internet was a phone call I got when I was a teenager. I didn't recognize the voice, so I asked who I was talking to. They said "Guess!" and I guessed that it was my uncle Tim, since he was the only person I could think might do that. They said "Right!" A little further into the conversation I realized that it was a complete stranger making a prank phone call and hung up.

I actually enjoy the sock-puppet humour as long as there is a way of telling who it actually is, so asking for an ID in the profile would completely take care of my problems with sockpuppets.

As a final note: damn, it's hard to not type "cockpuppets".

We maintain a culture where we like to know with whom we are speaking, and SPs are a deliberate subversion of this culture by posters who know that.

Bwah! Yes, in the nefarious pursuit of what? Something weighty, purposeful and undermining, right? A few laughs, entertaining some of the other posters for a little while? Shit, it can't be that simple. It has to be conspiratorial. C'mon, you differently-identitied (you thought I'd forgotten, right?) -- TELL US WHO YOU ARE PUPPETTING FOR?

For the record, we consensed about all of the above without voting on them. For the record, I am a consensetarian whenever it saves labor.

Those discussions took place prior to voting on the board. specifically in 12/02 and voting was not started until 2/03.

As I said earlier, not one written thing about "we don't do this" or "if you do this, this will happen" has been added to the FAQ or the Etiquette page without a vote since voting was approved - not as far as I can find.

What surprises me most about this discussion is how reluctant people are to letting go of the fact that not everyone shares their visceral reactions. I'm pretty sure I'm offended by stuff msbelle's not, and vice versa.

I don't care. I'm not second-guessing her sensitivity -- I'm going to take on faith that she's sincere, and neither mock nor try to argue her out of it.

Now, do I care enough about how *I* feel about the topic that offends her versus my concern with her feelings? A completely different question. Is not offending her too difficult for me to do? Important enough for me to do? That's between my and my god. One man's meat is another man's poison.

It's not a new idea.

Oh my word. JohnSweden made me get Coke up my nose. The cola kind.

You know, it occurs to me I am less bothered by this, because it happened at the Bronze all the time. We had Buffy's bra straps posting, and leather pants, and all sorts of wacky, and it was darn funny, even when we could use anonymizers, and couldn't tell by IP number, who was who. I know this is important to some of us. I'm sorry if I've forgotten that, along the way. I just want us to stay fun, but since this particular thing isn't fun for some of us, there's probably no way out but through. See you on the other side of the ballot.

I don't care. I'm not second-guessing her sensitivity -- I'm going to take on faith that she's sincere, and neither mock nor try to argue her out of it.

I don't know if people were trying to talk people out of their sensitivities, so much as talk them out of making rules/points of conduct, based on them, when there'd been no abuse (discomfort--yes, abuse--no). But if it came across as mocking or arguing out of, or second guessing sensitivities, I am sorry for that, too.

Those discussions took place prior to voting on the board. specifically in 12/02 and voting was not started until 2/03.

Oh fine Miss Accurate. I was afraid even as I typed that this was so.

not one written thing about "we don't do this" or "if you do this, this will happen" has been added to the FAQ or the Etiquette page without a vote since voting was approved - not as far as I can find.

Filling this gap was the original intent of the Lawspeak. Very happy to go forward and make it all official-like and useful in its new form.

JohnSw--really, dude, so ya think it'll be less funny if the person IDs themself in their profile? I don't.

I've been one two other boards where trolls have signed up under multiple sockpuppets and caused all sorts of badness. When called on it, they lied or called the accuser paranoid. Someone created a log-in name with one letter different than a poster and then parodied that poster's style in several days of posts without revealing who they were. It was done solely to embarass that poster and it wasn't pretty. This stuff hasn't happened here, and I hope it never does, but it does happen and this ID solution elegantly forestalls it.

Bwah! Yes, in the nefarious pursuit of what? Something weighty, purposeful and undermining, right? A few laughs, entertaining some of the other posters for a little while? Shit, it can't be that simple. It has to be conspiratorial. C'mon, you differently-identitied (you thought I'd forgotten, right?) -- TELL US WHO YOU ARE PUPPETTING FOR?

OK, I think you're making fun of me here because I was trying to sum up what's generally annoying about SPs in a neutral way. But you're overreacting.