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.

I don't think anyone's claiming codifying is consensed. I think everyone's admitting that it looks like IDing is pretty much okay.

I don't care if it's codified or not -- this is all way to meta for me to be invested in at this point.

However, for those who are against codifying (does that mean making it votable, or does it mean writing it down) how do you see handling refusal to ID? It is rude? It'll just a a thing we all yelled about for days but decided not to write down anywhere else? Is that fair to newcomers?

how do you see handling refusal to ID? It is rude? It'll just a a thing we all yelled about for days but decided not to write down anywhere else? Is that fair to newcomers?

Refusal to ID and not knowing it's nice to ID beforehand aren't the same thing. One can be rude, and the other's an acceptable newbie mistake that's easily rectified.

Refusal to ID and not knowing it's nice to ID beforehand aren't the same thing

Never said they were. However, if we all know that not doing the nice thing is step 1 on the warn/ban path, and we don't say so ...

Nice ... nice is wishing people happy birthday, or being there for someone in a bad place, or laughing at a joke you don't think is actually that funny.

That's nice. I don't think we mean nice.

Because I don't think that not wishing someone happy birthday is actually rude. It's certainly on a whole 'nother level of of social interaction.

However, if we know up front that this is both 'nice' behaviour and said 'niceness' is completely undivinable, why not point it out ahead of time? Instead of risking a "Okay, they're piling on the newbie, I hate these guys."

Which I kinda think may happen, especially if the board is as bad as many long-timers feel.

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.

Rude by what definition? Unless it's written down, I don't see how you can fairly take action against it. It's difficult to tell someone that there's going to be a consequence for something, when that something isn't written as a no-no in the rules or etiquette. If the majority of the board does not agree that this behavior is rude enough to be codified, then I can only imagine the big to-do there would be over someone trying to warn or ban someone for not wanting to identify themselves.

If this went to a vote, and codifying this lost, that would seem a fair indication that the majority would not want action taken against someone that did not want to identify themselves. If you're voting on whether or not to codify this, it seems that would include whether or not someone would have to identify themselves or be breaking a rule of the board by not doing so. Seems to me the behavior would then become fair game, and not actionable unless said sockpuppet is crossing the line in some way other than not wishing to identify themselves.

I'm off to bed. Thanks for listening, even if you don't agree.

Thanks Denise. I understand some of the points for codifying more than I did before your posts.

In my world, where people behave nicely, they would always identify themselves if asked. However,

Seems to me the behavior would then become fair game, and not actionable unless said sockpuppet is crossing the line in some way other than not wishing to identify themselves.

To have a written rule that forbids using a sockpuppet without identifying oneself in the profile seems overly legislative to me. Our rules cover offensive behavior.

The playful sockpuppets we have been discussing would have had no issue with disclosure in profile. The offensive sockpuppet was banned. It would appear to me that we have our bases covered.

It matters not to me whether we vote or not. I don't need a vote because I don't think we have a problem.

Y'all don't have to agree with me. but you really should