I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of using money to decide who is a core user or not.

SA, we started on Salon.com's Table Talk as a Buffy the Vampire Slayer thread, so our origins were definitely based on one show. As people got to know one another, we created 4 (or 5?) more threads including Natter so people could have sidebar conversations. When TT became part of the pay site, we moved to WX where more threads were made (Angel, Bitches, Movies) but the main reason for being was Buffy.

The one difference in the way I see that statement is that we were created to talk really about one fandom since day one, and often we digressed. Once those shows that fueled that fandom died down, the whole board has been a whole series of digressions. And the question of being a general TV board, seems, to me, like a huge shift in focus.

Becoming a general TV board may end up attracting more and more people, something that some b.orgers have mentioned as not being a great thing.

Also, who defines "core"? Based on # of posts? amount of money donated? who was here first?

They may be here reading all the time, but if they don't make an effort to post and integrate themselves into our existing community of talky meat people, then I don't think that we should worry too much about what their wishes are.

But suppose they only talk in tv threads? Suppose they make an effort there but have no desire to post in Natter or Bitches? Suppose there are more "peripheral" people that post however often in the other threads than there are "core" users that post in Natter/Bitches? How much should their wishes be taken into account then? Equally? Not at all? Should they each get half a vote?

It just seems like people are saying, "Okay, we'll take this poll, but if we get answers from people that don't post in Natter or Bitches we'll just discount them because obviously they are not truly "One Of Us"."

I know not everybody means that, or is even saying exactly that, but it's still coming across.

I would bet that I wouldn't be defined as a "core member", though I've been around a long time and I donate $$.

Denise, I think people are referring to lurkers who read and post nowhere at b.org.

Le Nubian, I would disagree. You actively post which seems to make you a core member.

As a former dedicated lurker, while I may agree with this:

I don't think that we should worry too much about what their wishes are.

I am a bit worried about this characterization which seems to color a lot of opinions (i.e. not just Jilli's) about lurkers:

they don't make an effort

It is not always a question of effort, interest, or commitment. When I was in grad school, for most of the day, I didn't have access to the internet. At home, I had dial-up via my phone line. There was honestly no way I could regularly participate.

And I don't know why we are making the lurker/member distinction. Do people think they are swaying voting?

And the idea of using contributions to define member status in any way gives me hives.

And I don't know why we are making the lurker/member distinction. Do people think they are swaying voting?

I don't think they are.

Really, le nubian? In my brain, anyone whose name I know is a "core member". But in some ways, I think we are governed by our core members... I would have to agree with Jesse that, at least in the past, the I "knew" most of the people both donating and voting, and it is fairly a fairly large group encompassing almost everyone I "know"

It just seems like people are saying, "Okay, we'll take this poll, but if we get answers from people that don't post in Natter or Bitches we'll just discount them because obviously they are not truly "One Of Us"."

That's not what I'm getting from what people are saying. People who post where ever are not lurkers. Those posters should speak up when we have these discussions and/or participate in voting, polls, whatever. If they don't, I think they've ceded what happens to the will of those of us who participate in this kind of thing. (And someone suggested making sure the poll could be anonymous, which I think is a fine idea.)

Ditto actual lurkers, actually, but I really don't feel any need to take their wishes into account when we try to figure out what this community is, because it isn't them. Sorry lurkers, I don't mean that to sound as mean as it does. What I mean is more like, I don't get to tell Rachel that she and Ross are all wrong for each other because I'm just watching them. Or something. I don't know what I mean.