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.

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

I agree. I just don't happen to think that sockpuppet kind of funny qualifies. And I also think that someone engaging in humor that the majority of the board feels is consistent demon-like behavior, will be dealt with without having to codify exactly how people are allowed to go about being funny.

Again, I'm not trying to debate whether the IDing of a person would make the joke less funny. I'm debating wheher it's right to tell someone how to go about something because it's annoying to *some*. If someone can tell a joke 6 different ways, I don't think the board should have the right to tell them which way they're allowed to present it, barring that their not being derogatory or insulting.

I'm not trying to upset you or anyone else. This is just my opinion and I'm fully aware that not everyone shares it. I'm also fully aware that my being a lurker, probably makes what I have to say not as important as what the die-hard regulars have to say. You guys live here, I just visit from time to time. I'm really not that vested in which way this thing goes, but I saw some people arguing against codifying this while others were trying to say a consensus had been reached. I just don't see where anyone sees a consensus. The majority may well go with codifying, but you won't know for sure until you vote.

Do you disagree with Burrell, then? I guess that's where I'm confused. To codify, or not to codify -- unconsensed. To ID -- only one person has said that doesn't fix things. And they bowed out.

Or did I miss more dissenters?

I think Denise's point is that it doesn't matter whether people have agreed on whether putting the real name in the profile helps things because we haven't decided whether that's something we want to codify or not.

If you don't codify it, it doesn't really matter who thinks it would or wouldn't help things to have an ID in the sockpuppet profile. If people reading this discussion want to ID themselves, they now know that it would be appreciated by some (merely tolerated by others), and can do so if they wish. People that want to sockpuppet anonymously can continue to do so as well, as there's nothing written anywhere saying that they can't. So basically, unless it's codified, nothing changes. and I've seen plenty of people arguing that it shouldn't be codified. Cindy, msbelle (I think, she at least wants to take it to a vote), JohnSweden, Aimee, ChiKat, Noise Design. And that's just going back a few pages. So, yeah. I see plenty of dissenters to actually making a change in policy or etiquette. And given that such a change would be the only thing that would actually restrict a user from sockpuppeting without IDing themselves, it's the only thing that makes any sense to debate.

People that want to sockpuppet anonymously can continue to do so as well, as there's nothing written anywhere saying that they can't. So basically, unless it's codified, nothing changes.

And if they do, and if they're asked to identify themselves and refuse, then that moves them at least into the category of rude behavior, which is dealt with in a number of ways, both formal and informal. There's all kinds of behavior that might not be specifically mandated or prohibited but in practice are community norms. I'd rather see us build this into those norms than make it a Rule.