Does it reflect badly on my sci-fi knowledge that I only just realised that We The Buffistas picked the answer to life, the universe, and everything as our One True Number?

FWIW, I have a deep and abiding respect and appreciation for Beverly, and recently realized that I don't think I've ever told her that. Now seems like a good time.

I'm not surprised at the disagreement to my position. YCitizenshipMV. I'd go into it more, but I don't imagine I'll change many people's opinion. I can, however, get the oil in my car changed, which is where I'm off to.

I'd just like to say that I really appreciate connie's voice of egalitarianism. It's often a single clear note in counterpoint to whatever discussion happens to be in progress. It always gives me a thought-check, a chance to rethink my position relative to the prevailing opinion. I wish I could be as fair-minded, but I'm too fearful of upset and change to be that open to everyone. But I'm really glad connie is.

I am starting to realize that one of the unaddressed issues here is that not all of us see ourselves--meaning the Board--in the same way at all. And that the primary metaphors we use to define the group affect the way we see it & how we want it to operate.

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.

Many people here see us as a government, whereas it drives me utterly insane to hear the board described in that way. To me, the difference between a democratic government and a PRIVATE, self-run online community are self-evident, and I probably piss some folks off because of that assumption. In my view, what keeps a government vital is not necessarily what will keep a community like ours vital. So I feel like most of the times I am butting heads with someone in Bureaucracy, it is over this specific definition of the community.

I am not saying that I am right and they are wrong. Far from it. I am saying that I can now better see that *this* definition is at the heart of that disagreement. And I hope that by knowing it, I can better address it the next time it comes up.

You know, I just sort of realized: I view Buffistas as a (very large) family of siblings, or a giant polyamorous marriage, rather than as some kind of town.

I’m not sure I agree (I have not thought through the metaphors yet), but I certainly prefer them because at least they address the importance placed on interpersonal relationships here and the issue of desire--and in particular the possibility of competing desires--that often drive the discussions here.

Both Allyson and Burrell sum up where I'm at. In my head, we're neither a society with a government, nor an island, nor a group of siblings. We are people who are using words to build relationships. Bottom line.

How we run ourselves will be predicated by the metaphor we choose. If we choose government and therefore citizenship, voting, rights, then it's a very different model than people hanging around who come and I go.

Orlando sucks. Installations that start three hours late suck. Half my crew sucks. [Except for the one guy who is a hottie and a sweetie.] High speed internet access rules!

*ahem*

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

So ChristianDollarStore? The spammerific troll. That was a citizen? Because I'm feeling pretty strongly that he/she/it wasn't.

I guess I don't see any way to clearly define Buffistaness and at what point a person becomes a Buffista. It's like obscenity, for me. I know it when I see it. But I can't define it.

I've been keeping out of Bureacracy lately, but recent posts have been low-key enough (for I am the queen of conflict avoidance; may all lesser conflict-avoiders bow down before me) that I feel comfortable with putting my two cents in.

Everyone's talking about how we should define the community, what metaphor we use and how that reflects on how we run things. I'm starting to think we're overcomplicating things, though. I've never really seem the board as a town (Sang Sacré to the contrary) or a family or a government. I pretty much see it as this: you guys are my friends, and some of the coolest people it's been my privilege to know. Even the people I sometimes disagree with, even the very rare people I always disagree with-- well, you're friends of my friends, and you're contributing to the group, so of course you're gonna be a valued part of the community.

I don't think just registering is gonna make you a part off the community, but I do think posting, getting to know us on an individual basis, getting known on an individual basis, is what makes someone a Buffista. It's getting to the point where you can go "oh, hey so-and-so is here! blah blah inside joke me too!" and someone else can say the same thing, 'cause they know you. And that can take a while, but that's okay, because I feel that we're worth it.

It's possible that I am more than unusually maudlin today, but prom's in two weeks and I'm in that kind of mindset.

I'm thinking the problem with "I know it when I see it" is that, operationally, it requires a single person or small panel of people to be the "I" who know it. You know, judges. And judges, like mayors, are set a little apart in status from the regular joe. I'd really prefer to stay away from the government metaphor if we can, because it implies formal status deficits among people -- not participants vs. non-participants, but some participants are more equal than other participants.

Yes, I am advocating that we be spastic and informal inasmuch as is functional. I'd prefer that Buffistas run, collectively, like a ratty 1984 Subaru that needs its shocks replaced than like a Ford Expedition fresh off the lot.

I don't know if either model works. We don't have "rights" as such that would define us as citizens. We have a parliamentary process because we want to be fair, not like some kind of social contract. But the family model doesn't work anymore either, because we can't really exert individual power over each other-- when it comes to voting, it's one man, one vote, majority rules. There is no ruling by daddy fiat. The whole "social capital"/free market type model seems to work only when there's an influential minority, or when preferences can be swayed.

I don't know where this adds anything. My real thought to add is the idea of "rights" or "citizenship" is just inapposite, because we don't at the same time consent to be ruled or to give up certain powers. We're like a, uh, partnership, maybe. Kind of economic, kind of relationshippy, a set of rules/charter but not a government.