Insent Nutty...

Sophia, I'd rather have a small team of advocates make community decisions on behalf of the community. I'm really very clear on what the criteria for that group should be, but posting it? I've already lost enough status on Zoe.

Allyson, you've made it pretty clear whom you want making decisions, and whom you don't want involved in the process. I'm also for a smaller team of advocates making community decisions, but when I suggested such a thing I got creamed. But I think you spend more time complaining on how much you hate this thread, and my posts in particular, then on proposing viable solutions to the problems you are seeing. And this is really not helpful.

Allyson, you've made it pretty clear whom you want making decisions, and whom you don't want involved in the process.

I think you'd be very surpised.

And this is really not helpful.

YMMV

Sophia, I'd rather have a small team of advocates make community decisions on behalf of the community.

Yeah, me too.

Quick! Let's consense!!

Just kidding.

Jesse-- you just about made me bust a gut.

Just so we're all clear, I was only kidding about trying to solidify a bullshit consensus.

Also, reading WX Bureacracy 1 (date 2001) is actually amusing me because we are fighting about thread proliferation. pretty much with the same posters and the same arguments. No wonder we all got irritated, it was the same arguement for 3 years!

Jesse: The Gang of One.

She's so certain, she consenses with her own self.

Allyson, it sounds from your posts as though you think our regular voter turnout of 85-100 is low.

I don't think it is. We may have over 900 registered users, but that's everyone who ever registered. I'd be surprised if our bank of active posters ("active" meaning more than 1 post/week) was more than 150 people. Out of that, an 85-person turnout is pretty good.

As for moderation via a Council of Watchers, eh. I'm another one who has suggested it and seen it get shot down before my page refreshed. I don't think it would be the Worst Idea Evah, but I do think the process of deciding who they were, assigning duties, and figuring out governing policies (things like lifetime duty vs. short terms, elected vs. appointed vs. randomly chosen, etc.) would tear this board apart FAR more than it would save us trouble.

I would love to know how many active users there are at Buffistas, just for general community knowledge sake. By active I mean, "Posts three or more times per week." YAMV, of course.

I do think the process of deciding who they were, assigning duties, and figuring out governing policies (things like lifetime duty vs. short terms, elected vs. appointed vs. randomly chosen, etc.) would tear this board apart FAR more than it would save us trouble.

I unsubscribed from the LAista list because it took 4 people 6 hours and 248 posts to figure out a time to see a movie. Not my place to say, "Shad up, youse, we're going here, at this time, and that's FINAL."

I'm not empress, I know. I have no patience. My judgment is not always Wise.

But Bureacracy is 8 people making 600 posts about an issue, and we're Not Supposed to Talk About That. It bugs. Illusion of consensus. I just feel like on Tim Thread, for example, we should battle it out, and whomever is left standing, wins.

I have a minority opinion on that, I understand why, and it's cool.