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

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

See, even though I don't think this should be codified, I think people should see the points for codifying, if that's what they're leaning towards. If the board thinks that this is an actionable behavior, then it should say so, even though I disagree that this should be an actionable behavior (if that makes sense).

The offensive sockpuppet that was banned was a completely different issue to me. It wasn't so much that he wouldn't identify himself, as it was that he wasn't allowed to be here regardless of his alias.

Someone way back mentioned not thinking that there was anything wrong with someone wanting to take on a different persona without the baggage attached, as long as they weren't being abusive. I agree with that. I mean, would what I'm saying to you right now be any different if I were saying it under a different name. I think people should be judged by their posts, not by the name up above them. Forget the funny for a minute. Suppose someone wanted advice on a situation, but didn't want to 'fess up to being in the particular situation. Uses a different name, talks it out, gets some advice, no harm no foul, goes back to being whoever. Is that a huge problem?

Really going to bed now. Thanks, again.

Wow. I have been following this discussion for the last several days, and I just am chiming in with my .02 since we seem to need a concensus.

I honestly don't see what the big deal is (MY .02 -- not sparking conversation, please, since I want the poor horse to quit being beaten and safely buried.)

I am against codifying. But will vote if that is what is agreed on. I don't find SP's offensive, or frankly, a BFD.

I guess I kinda feel that we're trying to close the gate after the horse has left the barn. I kinda feel that this got moved into proposal and voting territory way too quickly. This could have been a b'cacy discussion for a few days. Instead we lept very quickly into a proposal and it's bringing these voting issues up. We've had many discussion where issues have been somewhat resolved that never end up here in light bulbs, and I guess I'm just kinda surprised that this one ended up here.

Way up above I said this:

I am fine with (a) taking no Official Action against multiple log-ins in general; (b) strongly encouraging people who create jokey sock puppets to identify themselves in the profile of said sock puppet; and (c) generally discouraging the use of same. Then we just keep on keeping on with people not being assholes.

I think the "strongly encouraging" and "generally discouraging" parts need to be in writing, and I think we should vote on it.

I don't think there is a consensus (since if there is one, I can't tell what it is), and I'd like to know what everyone thinks.

See, I don't want the term Sock Puppets in there anywhere. If we are going to add the verbage I just want to have it very matter of fact and dealing with users that maintain multiple logins.

I agree with ND.