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?

---

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

PC stole Cindy's juice box!!!!!!!1

---

Hee.

Maybe we could just put this in the FAQ or Etiquette page:

Multiple user names make us: [link]

---

Damn you Cindy, I'm draining out my keyboard now.

---

Cindy, you are so clever as to make all further cleverness seem dull in comparison.

---

It just seems to me that having a rule or "suggestion" regarding identifying your real ID in your sockpuppet profile doesn't address the issues that people are claiming to be most concerned about. If a troll wants to be a troll, a polite suggestion in the FAQ ain't gonna stop them. If *I* wanted to be a troll, I could set up an account from work. I have multiple internet providers, one of them dial-up with different IP addresses. I could go to the library. I could go to my Mom's. What about codifying it in the FAQ would stop me?

And are people really worried about regulars here taking on a sockpuppet alias to cause harm and distress? If they are, then there are obviously problems here beyond a few lines in a FAQ. And if they aren't, then I don't really get what all the fuss is about. I've mostly lurked here for a few years and you all must know that someone here is always annoyed about something. Are you going to codify all of it? And how big are you plan on making the FAQ?

I mostly agree with Cindy and some others. Unless someone can illustrate a real danger to the health of the board, I think trying to codify what is and isn't appropriate regarding humor, is a dangerous slope to be on.

I also think that if there was a true consensus here, that this conversation wouldn't still be taking place so passionately. It seems that there are enough people still dismayed or concerned enough about codifying something like this, that changing it without a vote would just be one side of this taking it upon themselves to decide for the rest of the board. I don't see at this point how it would be fair, given the voting procedures already in place, to do anything but either nothing, or taking it to a vote.

Just my two cents.

---