I am compiling some of the posts about polls from 7/30 evening until now.

The economist in me also says that a question that we appear to be missing is whether the poster contributes funds to b.org and if so, how much and how often. I don't think we should institute any sort of merit system based on pay, but I do think that even with the disparate incomes of posters here, we would probably find that the more invested community members tend to contribute more and more often.

Askye hits it, for me. I--and others--have been proceeding on the assumption that Natter, Bitches, possibly Music and Other Media, as well as a tv thread or two is the core Buffista experience.

What if that's not the majority experience? What if only 60-70 people--very vocal people--use the board that way, and there are a couple hundred who check in every day to monitor Minearverse or Boxed Set, mostly lurk, may occasionally post in those threads, and go nowhere else on the board? They never interact outside the threads that interest them, and have no wish to. Their experience is the discussion of a couple of narrow points of focus, not a broad range of people and subject.

Okay, no offense to any lurkers, but if that's the case I say who the hell cares? I'm far more concerned with the experience of the 60-70.

Okay, no offense to any lurkers, but if that's the case I say who the hell cares? I'm far more concerned with the experience of the 60-70.

me, too. I mean, I care about the lurkers and everything, but if they don't contribute significantly or make their preferences known, why should we bend over backwards to include them in this decision?

that's the case then it suggests to me that it doesn't matter to the majority of posters not the majority of posters in Bureaucracy, but the majority of people actually using the board, that the "community" we've been so proud of and so careful of damaging isn't that important. That we are, in reality, just another tv board, so we can get on with a thread for every show and let go of the "community" aspect of the board.

I agree that it is premature to think that there are thousands of lurkers listening to us talk about TV. . I do think that there are a number of non-lurker users (myself included) who have seen more TV threads as a way to experience community, because we want to talk about TV with these particular people. This particular thread was the first time I have felt that spinning out was dangerous to community.

I've been a participant in Buffy-related threads with this group since TT, through WX, and of course here. I can't participate in Natter or Bitches regularly because my work demands are pretty overwhelming at times. I still manage to watch an awful lot of tv, watch movies, read Harry Potter, and consume Buffy Season 8 comic books.

I must admit I chafed a bit at some remarks in a Voting discussion (last week I think) that linked to the TV Forum at WX (which I am a forum owner) and used that as an example of what they didn't want buffistas to become. I suppose I took the comment more negatively than it was intended.

Also, it perhaps was a joke upthread that someone didn't want new people in Natter - that's kind of how it has felt to me whenever I've put my toe in - but I think some of the threads and discussions can be insular.

Is there room for those of use who enjoy a certain relationship to the board (through subscription to particular threads and/or lurking) versus those who enjoy Natter and Bitches and longer term relationships and interactions? I happen to think so.

Do we need polls to come to this conclusion? I'm not sure.

Perhaps we need a cap on the number of individual show threads (no more than 10?) that are opened and close some that don't generate enough discussion - (as defined by 50? a week during a regular season).

Democracy, which I believe is the most fair system of governance in history, has a couple of problems. One is that the deliberations required for consensus or even majority consensus are imperfect at best and at worst require unsavory compromises and frustrating inefficiencies (such as repeated discussions of pretty much the same issue). Another problem is that smaller, more tight-knit communities are subject to the preferences and whims of the larger masses. This seems to be the major concern of this discussion.

So, maybe we need representational government here to secure the rights and preferences of the long-time b.org community. The Stompies aren't elected, but they implement the decisions of the majority. Maybe instead of always sending every issue out to a general vote, we should have an elected Stompy Advisory Committee who will vote on some issues and choose to send others to the general b.org populace.

Maybe instead of always sending every issue out to a general vote, we should have an elected Stompy Advisory Committee who will vote on some issues and choose to send others to the general b.org populace.

Why don't we table this idea until we settle this one? We are all too likely to go off on a tangent, and that's the last thing we need right now.

I must admit I chafed a bit at some remarks in a Voting discussion (last week I think) that linked to the TV Forum at WX (which I am a forum owner) and used that as an example of what they didn't want buffistas to become. I suppose I took the comment more negatively than it was intended.

I hope my linking didn't give that impression, because it's the opposite situation for me. I use that forum to talk about TV, and it's obviously a different experience for me, but one which absolutely works.

Also, I'd like to remind everyone that I've been here the longest, because I think it's cool. I'm never first in anything.

Why don't we table this idea until we settle this one? We are all too likely to go off on a tangent, and that's the last thing we need right now.

I agree.