I know most of you have flinched when you hear the ideas of officers or directors being elected here, but I’m not sure what the knee-jerk reaction is for.

Because one of the one things we have consistently resisted is the idea of having "special" community members. We balk at the terms "high-status", or "true Buffista". Even the Stompies will insist that just because they have the power to white-out posts and close tags and do other nifty stuff, they're not any more important than anyone else. When we start electing representatives, we've firmly moved out of Cocktail Party Land. And I like it there.

I appreciate the thought that you're putting into this, Wolfram, but you're swimming upstream here.

Edited to add a "g".

IT HAS BEEN AROUND FOR A LONG TIME.

Not at the current membership level.

Not at the current membership level.

We have no way of measuring how many lurkers there were at TT. Maybe we did at WX, but I don't remember any firm figures from there.

The culture has been around since, what, 1998 or so? Sure, the board has gotten larger. But there's an evolved culture that has violently resisted the idea of official officers for a long time. Even the concept of Stompy Foots made us uneasy.

What Plei And Betsy And Dana Said.

We do not need a government. We do not want a government. The Stompies were chosen primarily based on their coding skills and timezone availability (for starting new threads). They are not, have never been, and will never be moderators of any kind.

Not at the current membership level.

Most of whom are not endorsing the idea of voting. Less than 20% of the "population" here participated.

We started all this to simplify things and yet ensure that every voice that wishes to, be heard. Even though I absolutely trust ita (for example) and would agree with 99% of the things she'd say; I don't believe voting her in (even if she didn't threaten to kill me for doing it) as my representative, would ensure that I would be heard. Also, it's too bureaucratic. Also, since the people I'd want to represent me (if I wanted it) would be the ones who absolutely hated the idea of having that power, so it sets us up to be represented by the people who want that power -- and that's a bad way to go, IMO.

Hello Wolfram. How's the wife? I haven't posted with you since you mentioned you're expecting a bundle of joy in June.

Because one of the one things we have consistently resisted is the idea of having "special" community members. We balk at the terms "high-status", or "true Buffista". Even the Stompies will insist that just because they have the power to white-out posts and close tags and do other nifty stuff, they're not any more important than anyone else. When we start electing representatives, we've firmly moved out of Cocktail Party Land. And I like it there.

HELL YES.

Because some of us, a LOT of us, HATE HATE HATE the idea. We hate it here, we hate it in real life. Why did I buy a house not a condo? Because I hate crap like that. I hate the notion of Elected Officials.

Fuck. That. Shit.

I came here to avoid that kind of mentality.

I stayed here because that kind of mentality didn't exist. Because it WAS like a cocktail party.

Eventually, I became one of the people making beer runs. Because I could, and I was there. I'm not special, I just have the keys to the supply closet. I don't want a system of closet monitors and power structures.

I appreciate the thought that you're putting into this, Wolfram, but you're swimming upstream here.

Also anti-officers. Nothing more to add to the discussion. I do think the vote/poll to clarify majority is a good idea.

Not at the current membership level.

Please see above re: Betsy's post. We aren't deciding how much we're willing to invest in road maintenance or the tourist advertising budget, and the gazillions of posts on policy are making my eyes bleed. If we get more hierarchal than "Hey, would a Stompy close a tag?", a lot of people are going to go elsewhere for their fun.