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.

I think trying to codify what is and isn't appropriate regarding humor, is a dangerous slope to be on

Is it really less funny with the user IDed in the profile? I know I don't think they're that funny to start off with, but is the joke really in the impenetrability?

Is it really less funny with the user IDed in the profile?

I'm not really trying to comment on whether it's more or less funny with the user IDed in the profile. That's not my point. My point is that if the sockpuppet person think's it's funnier without IDing themselves, you're saying that they can't do that, because *some* people don't think it's funny unless they ID themselves, and maybe not even then. It feels like telling people that they can't be funny, unless everyone else approves of how they're being funny.

I don't like much of the political humor I've seen here. Some of it's really pissed me off. So I stopped lurking for a bit, and *voila*, I stopped being pissed off. I never would have dreamed of making a proposal that would restrict people from political humor unless *I* though it was funny. And not because I know I would have lost the vote, but because it's not my place to tell people that they can't be funny unless I like how they're doing it.

Now, if the majority of the board wants this sockpuppet issue to be codified, then even though I disagree with that, the voting procedures in place say that it shall be so. I guess I'm just not convinced that a vote would play out that way. I could be totally wrong. Maybe I'd be the only person voting not to codify it. But to just decide that it's consensed, when there are still people arguing aginst it, seems unfair to me.

Well, it is clear that some sorts of humour can fall into consistent demon-like behaviour, or at least I'd thought so.

I thought the magic of the compromise is that a) joke just as funny and b) people put off by the anonymity are appeased.

Someone did speak up to say b wasn't entirely true, but it hadn't occurred to me that a was under debate.