I brought up that "we paid for it and coded it" argument a long long time ago and someone said it wasn't sensible to express it in that way, but I can't remember who or why.

Signed, I Both Paid And Coded

Oh yeah, if I'm going to do the Devil's Advocate thing, what about when the Popular Kids or the Stompy Feet disagree?

Earlier on Plasmo proposed that if 3 Stompies thought you were an asshole, you got the warning, but what if three did and three thought you were hilarious?

No, I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. When the statement is "You're conspiring against me", the answer is "The people who have been here a long time form the community whose standards are being enforced. One of the ways they formed this community was to build this board." I don't mean (and shouldn't have said) that people who sent money had more rights than people who didn't; I mean that the people who, one way and another, built the community own it.

You can join any time you like. But if you act like a jerk, the reason we have a right to call you on it is that this is our town, we built it, and we like it the way we built it.

three did and three thought you were hilarious?

Then I figure we shrug and deal for awhile.

Yeah, the community isn't defined as who paid, it's defined as who contributes. Which includes all kinds of people who've contributed their words and thoughts and etc. as well as the people who contributed their money. There are lurkers who paid, and they'd have a hard time speaking up against someone rude, just because most people wouldn't know their names.

I don't think the Buffistas that sent money have more rights than the ones that didn't. That's not all that building the board is about.

Aha, that may have been the objection that was raised, yes.

Here's my counter-argument. My contribution was on behalf of both me and [insert name here] who couldn't afford it, but was around back then.

Me, I didn't pay. Sure, spurious what with the coding, but still.

If we were selling rights (or trading them for work), we should have said up front.

As a Stompy, I'm torn. I do not want to be argued with when action is called for. And I don't want to be where all the decision lies.

That having been said, I think the Stompy Foot mix is sufficient that the Most Sensitive Common Denominator is a good guide.

three did and three thought you were hilarious?

Then I figure we shrug and deal for awhile.

And, of course, we discuss it here like adults.

There are also people who've come around recently who are clearly respected members of the community. It's not even about longevity. The fact is, we do know it when we see it, and we are wary about stomping with our feet on people, and we give people the benefit of the doubt, and then we have a procedure. If the stompy feet can't agree to give someone a warning, well, we'll cross that bridge if we come to it.

I've noticed that things have calmed down there since the focus has turned back to the show, and away from the Natter. I hope staying on topic helps. (Catching up in the thread it has read like a strange, through-the-looking-glass Natter where everyone was nattering to avoid the trollage.)

BTW, I think the actions taken were appropriate and I was glad to see the warning.

we do know it when we see it

This is our policy in a nutshell, isn't it? "We know it when we see it, and we know who 'we' are"?