Thread:SavageOpress1138/@comment-104549-20160305012836/@comment-20644-20160309212553

1. The Terms of Use point wasn't to say that "because Wikia doesn't ban it, you shouldn't either." It's to illustrate the point that, globally, it's not a problem. It's generally more something that people have kneejerk reactions to and very strong feelings, in the good faith effort to prevent problems. But there aren't actually any problems of note.

2. Generally, it's incumbent on people wanting to add a rule to justify the need for it. If there's not a need for it, why have a rule? I don't see it as a deterrent. In the last 2 and a half years, has their been a rash of sockpuppetry? I don't think so.

3. That was 2 and a half years ago. It seems everyone was content to go along with it and not raise any objections until now. A conversation between 2 people is no different than one person making a change. It's just as unilateral. And when the change was made, the community was dead. Even you were largely inactive at that time. There was no point in holding a vote.

Not to get too technical here but the discussion that led to the change that you're saying constitutes consensus was not done properly. There was no consensus track vote, and the consensus track was the primary means of making community decisions back then. If you go to the version of the policy from before then, you'll find this wording:


 * "Sockpuppetry is the creation of an alternative account to make it look like another user. Sockpuppets can be created by vandals to evade blocks or legitimate users to create an extra facet of interest in the community."

So if you accept that the Senate Hall discussion that led to the change was improper in the first place, then what you'll find is a standing policy that is completely in line with the change I made. Because what that says is "don't do it deceptively." That's the definition of sockpuppetry, not "no multiple accounts."

Given that, if we're left with two changes that each side feels was done improperly, then we're at a debate over the merits of "don't sockpuppet" (the true definition) vs "don't use multiple accounts." And I think that the history of the last many, many years shows that the only policy SWFanon needs is "don't use multiple accounts." Policies, by their nature, should be as reactionary as possible, not as preventative as possible.