I just want to chime in by repeating both a point other people have made, and a point I have made.

As other people have said, basically you are a real Buffista once you delurk and consider yourself a real Buffista. I really think it is more your own comfort level. Mike, if you are willing see yourself as a Buffista you now are one. You disagreed with us - but did so politely. That is all we ask. I disagree with people a lot - and so long as I do it politely it is not objected to.

But one point that may be controversial, that I made before. I do think there is such a thing as a core Buffisita. It takes a lot of work to keep this place going. Some of us (not me) do a lot more of that work than others. People who take up the thankless work of coding the board, or being a Stompy Foot, or any of a number of things are doing more than the average bear to keep us going. That makes them core Buffistas. 0

It is just like any volunteer group. A few people do most of the work; in this group that is recognized, and on internal Buffista matters their opinion will weigh more heavly whether they formally have more authority than anyone else or not. (And Allyson, you are definitely part of that core group.)

You core Buffistas (and except for Allyson apparently, you know who you are) who hate the idea of being in that position will just have to live with the fact that you have done a lot of work, earned some respect for it, and will be listened to more than your average bear as a result.

Okay, now I feel bad.

One, yes there is a Core Group of Buffistas, people who worked really hard to get us where we are.

I was mostly worried about "real" buffista vs, not a real buffista with other posters.

Also, I used Allyson as an example from something I drug out of my memory from when we were trying to hash out the policies & procedures for dealing with difficult members back on WX. I don't mean to speak for Allyson and I may be misrepresenting her viewpoint entirely.

In the Firefly thread there was a post from DXM that M had been suspended, Steph blessing the decision, then Scrappy posted a reference to M's farewell 'big brother' reference and Jon posted a request to not talk about it any more. That was the only discussion of which I was aware at the time.

Like DX, in retrospect, I should have said "go to Bureaucracy", rather than just "Move on." If you didn't know about the discussion here, it would have sounded (did sound!) like I was just trying to suppress discussion, and for that I apologize.

My general response to the idea of people in charge is summarized in the following:

The Catalan Oath of Allegiance

We, who are as good as you, swear to you, who are no better than us, to accept you as our king and sovereign lord, provided you observe all our liberties and laws--but if not, not.

Hey this might be a dumb question, but what would we have done if mieskie came to this thread and posted annoying and combative stuff?

Mike's posts kind of make the point, were we talking secretly behind his back? And what would we have done if we'd no longer been able to do so?

Hey this might be a dumb question, but what would we have done if mieskie came to this thread and posted annoying and combative stuff?

Well, at least it would have been in the appropriate thread. All things being equal, I'd rather hash it out with someone here than in the FF thread.

OK now if that's the case, then maybe we should have linked, and asked him to come here? What do people think?

I think the discussion probably went more smoothly for him not having been here, but that if he had been here, it would have been precisely his right, and that there was nowhere else to have the discussion. This is where it belongs, and it's not private for a reason.

However, it seems that the blurb on the main page/message centre might not be enough -- I think the existence and purpose of this thread should be highlighted in etiquette. I suspect that people avoid this thread, consciously or through incomplete information, who might be interested in the results, if not the discussions leading up to them.

And I don't want bannings to be posted elsewhere, like Press, or something. It's making too much of a fuss.

OK now if that's the case, then maybe we should have linked, and asked him to come here? What do people think?

Nah. That's being just a bit too helpful.

Bwah!

On Buffistahood: I don't consider myself one. But this isn't a commentary on the community or individuals at all. I discovered many on TT. Posted here and there on WX. More here ('cause it is so pretty and bright and smart and I have more time!) I'm simply not invested here as elsewhere, but that's my choice for the moment. It is just about how necessary I feel to the Busffista community. OK, that sounds wrong and depreciating to someone.

Dudes, I read with awe and wonder how well people here take care of each other and interact, online and in meatspace. I'm just more antisocial, perhaps.

Try again: I went to a quaker college, I was raised a quaker. Round about the time I started college, I stopped calling myself a quaker for various internal reasons. I still am, in some ways, as viewed by the outside world. But parts of me disallow that whole label, but not in a bad way.

Did this mean I lost respect for that community? No. Did this mean I stopped admiring much of what they stand for? Nope. I am all pro-quakery.

It is a personal label, to some degree. Embraced by a community, shaped by shared values of that community, but still just a label. If you feel called to quakerhood (or buffistahood) by all means, call yourself one. If you can't call yourself one, you can still share much of the core of the -hood and enjoy the comraderie. Core is what counts. If you share it, you'll find this a likely comfortable fit, no matter what you call yourself, how long you've been posting, what your shorthand is.

I'm always going to find solace in the occasional foray back into the Society of Friends. I'm not one, and I may never be one, but it is all amicable.

And if that wasn't random...