It's also useful to not cut them slack when they're are being an asshat.

Particularly if they have a consistent history of asshat-edness.

I think the idea of social capital just pings people who are self-conscious about how they're coming off. Like everybody's running around with a counter judging people.

gives Aimee two up-clicks for reasonable responses. gives Rio her daily upclick for being so damn cute.

I think the idea of social capital just pings people who are self-conscious about how they're coming off. Like everybody's running around with a counter judging people.

I have one of those dials people use for audience testing.

I'm just saying sometimes it feels like that to me. This might be/is an "Aimee" thing.

It's not just an Aimee thing. As soon as the phrase "social capital" pops up, I can't help imagining everyone on the other side of the screen going "I wonder how much I have?" Quantification often leads to hierarchies, and I've got this stupid fetish about egalitarianism and some rank newbie feeling confident enough to stand up and speak their mind without fear.

And someone's going to say, "You mean they can't now?" Somewhere a newbie (got to find a better term) is sitting there going, "I want to say something, but I don't think I dare." To which our hypothetical first someone is going to say, "Well, that's just too bad, isn't it, that they don't have the cojones to speak up?" To which I say, "Yeah, it is, and I wonder why they feel that way?"

And the phrase "Nobody has rights in a private forum" is rarely spoken by those who feel disenfranchised.

I think social capital is an interesting concept, but I feel like talking about it always just results in people taking it the wrong way and in hurt feelings.

Whatever it's worth, I've never seen a post -- including ChiKat's above -- that included the phrase "this is probably going to cost me social capital, but..." that actually made me think less of the person posting it. I suspect the wrong people worry about it in the wrong way, and for the wrong reasons, while people who are actually losing social capital are oblivious or don't care.

Whatever it's worth, I've never seen a post -- including ChiKat's above -- that included the phrase "this is probably going to cost me social capital, but..." that actually made me think less of the person posting it. I suspect the wrong people worry about it in the wrong way, and for the wrong reasons, while people who are actually losing social capital are oblivious or don't care.

I'd concur with that. People don't lose anything by speaking their mind in a reasonable way, or disagreeing with the majority opinion. I don't think less of somebody because they have opinions about cheese which differ from my own. (Even though some of them are PLAINLY INSANE.) In fact, I tend to respect people more who disagree with the prevailing opinion and bother to make that stand in a civil and thoughtful way. On the flipside, I lose respect for people when they are assholes. Who doesn't?

Is this the last bit of progress made in here:

Betsy HP "Voting Discussion: We're Screwing In Light Bulbs AIFG!" Apr 14, 2005 8:25:23 am PDT

My understanding of the bullshit consensus is the following entry in Etiquette:

"Please be aware that posting under multiple pseudonyms annoys some Buffistas. If you use more than one Buffista account for the same person, please identify yourself in the profile of the subsidiary accounts. Thus the secondary account "Zeitgeist" would have the profile entry "this is really Sign O'The Times". This helps people distinguish unlurkers from game-players." [--Betsy]

...

I'd really rather we just let this go, but if not, I'd like to see it go in the FAQ, rather than the etiquette guide, and under a header of "Multiple User Names" in the "Customs and Ritual Practices" section after "Registration" and maybe lightened up a smidge, in tone.

Betsy, how about something like:

We like to know our fellow Buffistas. If you post under more than one user name, you may startle the Buffistas. To mitigate this, please identify yourself in the profile of the secondary account(s). Thus, Bob's secondary account "Likes Carrots" would have something like "This is just Bob" in the tagline, or in the "Your Description" field on the profile page of the "Likes Carrots" account. Similarly, if someone asks of Likes Carrots, "Bob, is that you?" Bob would immediately say, "Oh, yeah. It's just little old me." This helps us distinguish new members from good old Bob, and good old you, too.

And the phrase "Nobody has rights in a private forum" is rarely spoken by those who feel disenfranchised.

Well...no, because feeling "disenfranchised" presupposes a belief in rights.

Sometimes, when I post, I think about how much capital is banked, and how much I'm willing to spend telling someone to fuck themselves. And then I start looking up in a thesaurus better terms for "go fuck yourself," tally up the points for things like, "you know, that's the dumbest shit I've seen on the net, and I've read AOL chatrooms" or, "perhaps you're not thinking that through, is this really what you mean to say, or am I misunderstanding your point?"

Then I divide by pi, and post the appropriate response.

think I'd be a lot harder on ita or Kat or Kristen on the board if they pissed me off here than I would on some newbie. Because that would actually hurt, you know?

I do. That's what I meant by:

It's also useful to not cut them slack when they're are being an asshat.

YAY! 2 clicks up! ALthough, does that imply that I don't normally give reasonable responses? *wink*

Thanks for the cites guys. Kat, I think you were memfault. When you explained social capital in that discussion, I remember something just clicking in my head.

Although it did take several more months until I stopped spending it all in one place.