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.

Sophia, just wanted to chime in and say your longish post about the Buffistas and your experience of them was wonderful - pretty much sums up my experience (except of course for the getting around to posting so much later)

On the subject of Bureaucracy (the thread and the process - and I never would have spelled that right if it wasn't at the top of the page), I view it as necessary evil. I think this thread accomplishes EXACTLY what is was designed to do. Does it please everyone? No! That's kinda what it was designed to do to. It takes care of the crap that no one else wants to see. And I think, for the most part, people Doblerize enough that I think it's working. Does this sometimes lead to endless bouts of Bureaucracy-roundy-round (this being the conversational equivalent of Nascar)? Sure, but that's the nature of the beast.

-Signed, a newbie poster but eternal lurker.

Also, I am reading over the WX Bureacracy thread for Nutty,

Anyone who is contributing to this process is a saint. A sorely tried and tempted saint, I think Anne would agree, but a saint.

I'd rather have a small team of advocates

Oh, I hadn't understood that.

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 surprised.

Very curious now. What is Allyson's unexpected slate of candidates? Does she want Hayden as the philosopher king, or Dana as the dignified regent, Plasmo-Moonlit-Angus as a stray alien triumvirate, ita vs MechaKrelboyne as The People's Champions, Shawn and Wolfram retained to file competing class-action thread name proposals? I would have expected Allyson's preferred form of government to be Allyson Threadstraddler, Vengeful Deity, but then that wouldn't surprise me so it can't be it.

But Bureacracy is 8 people making 600 posts about an issue, and we're Not Supposed to Talk About That.

I think this is a "democracy is the worst government ever invented" argument. Sure, most people don't participate, and some have disproportionate influence. When someone feels strongly about something, though, they have a voice and no one can tell them to shut up. If the Bureaucrats bring up something too outrageous for the mass of Buffistas, we can vote it down. With moderators, all we could do is bitch and second-guess.

I phrased that neutrally, but I feel it personally. I feel like an equal contributor here, even though only one or two of the 600 posts are mine. I feel like the votes are fair mandates. When the Stompies have taken some actions without the backing of a vote, I've supported them and agreed, but I could also see myself being convinced to resent them because I had no voice in the process. So democracy makes a contented citizen out of me.

I agree that talk about the Gang of X concept was kind of suppressed, but "bullshit consensus" covers it, and voting fights that.

I agree that talk about the Gang of X concept was kind of suppressed, but "bullshit consensus" covers it, and voting fights that.

Because I was talked down from my flame war ledge, natch. *g*

I'm not sure, still, that voting has or will ever solve anything. We're far too prone to being talky meat here. But, eh, we'll see.

I do, of course, totally agree with Cindy that it's been taken way the freaking fuck too seriously.

Edited to add a dropped O.

So has discussion. Maybe we should try a Magic 8-Ball for the big decisions.

Wolfram, I've been thinking about how best to respond to your post.

I loved the Bronze. very much. Saw it go kaboom over time. Buffistas became a safehouse back in the Table Talk days, then WorldCrossing.

So, when Buffistas left the island to become a self-governing body, I furrowed my brow and hunkered down, expecting the worst, hoping for the best.

We have different personal philosophies, you and I.

I'm very big on taking the bull by the horns, walking the walk, and doing instead of talking. That said, I never really took part in Bureaucracy until we moved to the Phoenix, simply because I felt that in order to make intelligent community decisions, I had to become part of that community, get to know the community, let them get to know me. I took part in non-bureaucracy discussions, moving from strictly show threads to Natter, lurked in various places, got to know the board culture, and add to it.

It seems you spend as much or more time talking about change than you do experiencing the board as it is. This makes me insane.

My perspective is that there's been a creation of the illusion of democracy, for reasons that have nothing to do with fairness, but instead to get people to shut. the. hell. up. In most democracies, there are limitations as to who can participate. One must be 18 in the US to register to vote. The expectation is that at this point you've had some rudimentary education on the history of the union, and can make an informed decision, as a legal adult. You must also be a citizen.

One must work at being a member of a community. Simply registering shouldn't give one the rights to the same respects earned by others who have been contributing consistently, over time. I read your posts as, "anyone who wants to have a say, should have a say." I disagree. I hold the minority opinion on that matter.

I was a member of a mythic community, once, and began that journey much like you, wanting to change things. I thought people were elitist and snobby, and should lighten the hell up. I learned over time that community standards were developed over time, a post at a time, and in order to keep those standards, folks that didn't add positively to the culture were cut loose. These were chat speakers, spammers, and folks who were generally hostile towards the community-at-large.

I've seen dozens of Zoe's and Mieske's over the years I've participated in online communities. I can spot them in three posts or less. I've seen them gather moss and gain footholds and destroy community standards until the board devolves into a tangle of insanity and flame wars.

In the Bronze, their names were well. I guess it wouldnt be polite to name names. I had thought of eight people off teh top of my head who exhibited teh same behaviors. And people gave them chance after chance, and good folks ran to private boards where memberships were invite-only and closed to public viewing. New blood with new perspectives and opposing viewpoints are invited in a bit at a time.

This is how The Well, the one of the oldest of online communities has survived. It is private in that one pays to play, and they have figured out over time how many members it can sustain at one time, and accept new members accordingly.

So, I see people talking in terms of weeks and months, and my head spins. Web communities can last for a decade or more, and decisions made now can sustain the board culture that I and others adore for years, or rip it apart in months. So when I see drastic changes in board culture in short time, especially when proposed by folks who haven't bothered to really get soaked in that culture, I think we're swirling down a drain.

You see problem/solution where I see confusion/clarification. Sometimes we're not looking for a solution, we're just talking about Who We Are and Who We Want to Be. Talky meat doesn't always need a vote, most of the time, talky meat just wants understanding.

As this is being conducted on a public thread, I shall insert myself into this exchange, hoping I'm not intruding too much.

Simply registering shouldn't give one the rights to the same respects earned by others who have been contributing consistently, over time.

By registering, this makes the person a citzen of the Phoenix. If one doesn't want to be enfranchised, one remains a lurker. All citizens have rights. This is generally considered a good thing. Even when it's people one dislikes with a holy passion that transcends the lifespans of stellar clustars, they have the same rights as everyone else. Because once one starts defining groups as more equal than others, it's a nasty, slippery slope. I'm proud of this board that we're willing to wade through the bog of enfranchisement.

Allyson - *smootch*

(If you babblefish that from Bronzer to Buffista speak it'll come back "WROD" :)

Communities aren't made in Bureaucracy.

One must work at being a member of a community. Simply registering shouldn't give one the rights to the same respects earned by others who have been contributing consistently, over time.

I never understood the pandering to lurkers thing (Be it here or the Bronze or any number of other boards I can name.)

I'm a poster, not a performance artist.

And if I open my mouth to voice an opinion, it's usually because I figure I've earned the right. The hard way- post by post by freakin' post.

Communities aren't made by lurkers.

By registering, this makes the person a citzen of the Phoenix.

With all due respect, Connie. I can't agree with that. Because communities aren't made by registrations either.

I barely consider myself a Buffista. I'm a Buffista with training wheels at best. And frankly, if that label doesn't have value, if it isn't earned, how do you expect people to respect it?

Edited to add: Unless you are differentiating between "citizen of the phoenix" and "Buffista". Which I would understand. But in regard to this conversation (all variations of it) those terms have been used interchangeably.

Whoo, Allyson rules. I know it feels like work to you to turn on that ultra-reasonable mode, so I appreciate it on that level too.

I can spot them in three posts or less.

I remember my first response to Zoe in Angel thread was partly motivated by, "Oh, she's going to have trouble fitting in... I ought to encourage her a little." Developing the radar, air defense system not acquiring targets.

Web communities can last for a decade or more, and decisions made now can sustain the board culture that I and others adore for years, or rip it apart in months.

It gives me a happy to think the Buffistas might last ten years. I bet we would want to change the name by then, though.

It seems you spend as much or more time talking about change than you do experiencing the board as it is.

aurelia called me "the ambidextrous Buffista" for being subscribed to as many right-hand threads as left-hand threads. Sometimes I feel unbalanced, when I save time by unsubscribing from Natter and UnAmericans before Bureaucracy. But I never feel like I need to amass more social capital elsewhere to put forth an argument here. In BBaBB, by contrast, there's a natural group of "moderators" who can actually build and code things and I sometimes feel like, "Who am I to be pushing for these 'Tim Alerts' to come to my instant messenger? I don't create anything around here." What I'm trying to say is that I'm fragile and always feel like I'm near the outside of the group, so I need things to be inclusive, even though I've been here a while.

I never understood the pandering to lurkers thing

Lurkers of the world, unite!

More blow-in than Buffista.

I used to think this meant you would just blow in and back out like the breeze, so it's nice to hear you've touched down and are on training wheels now.