I've got a juice box with your name on it, Cindy.

---

I want cabana boys to bring us the cookies.

---

If we had cabana boys, we wouldn't need the cookies.

---

You need the sugar for energy.

---

This stuff hasn't happened here, and I hope it never does, but it does happen and this ID solution elegantly forestalls it.

Been there too. I don't believe legislating for fine detail that isn't common practice is the appropriate response.

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.

I was in fact goofing.

Now we don't want to invalidate anyone's feelings. Not liking the sockpuppets is just as valid as thinking anyone who would want to ask for ID on multiple log-ins is a humorless reactionary.

Now there's some funny stuff.

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).

Apparently, but that horse seems to have sailed.

Edited: wording to Robin

---

1. What the heck is going on here?

2. It took me 20 minutes to figure out what the heck a "sock puppet" was.

3. They don't bother me because I can generally ignore them.

4. Why don't people just Marcie them?

---

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.

I'm guessing that if you think that sockpuppets are inherently rude, that it's gone past discomfort. Is that a position you can talk someone out of? Having already been offended?

---

I'm guessing that if you think that sockpuppets are inherently rude, that it's gone past discomfort.

Isn't being exposed to something rude/being offended a form of discomfort (sincere question)? If my apology also came across as minimizing people's feelings, again, I'm sorry. It's not intentional and I'm not seeing it.

Is that a position you can talk someone out of? Having already been offended?

I'm sorry. I was saying I *didn't* want to talk anyone out of that. The whole point in the section of my post you quoted, was to apologize if my posts came across as talking (only I used 'argue' as the verb) anyone out of their reactions. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

---

Isn't being exposed to something rude/being offended a form of discomfort (sincere question)?

When does offense become abuse? My point was that some people thought abuse had already happened.

Yet still the try at talking out of it (and this is best questioned to JohnSweden, not you, Cindy, since he seemed to be doing it/agreeing with your point) still happened.

---

I am surprised that this discussion is still generating so much heat.

I think at this point the question is not, "do we want to legislate anything regarding the use of sockpuppets?" I think there is some agreement that putting proper user names in the profile is an adequate response, and one that is not unduly burdensome on those who enjoy creating sockpuppets. So now the question is, "do we want to make an actual change to the etiquette page re: sockpuppets, or is an unwritten change to the code of behavior enough?

---