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.

I want a board where someone like Rebecca Lizard would no longer list herself as an "ex-Buffista" on her blog.

I think the metaphor would be a long running party - one that goes on for years - like the one on the Alabama Tiger (John D. McDonald reference). Of course that metaphor requires some people to be hosts and some guests - which I think is accurate. I mean there are the people who decided to have the party and who take care of the essential functions. There are people who stop by to help with the prep and act as volunteer co-hosts. There are others who contribute food or beer or whiskey,or chip in to help rent the space or at least donate beer money. And there are others who just kind of take part in the party. And ya know there are long term party goers who drop by all the time. There are others long termers who drop by less frequently. And there people who drop for a short time, decide it is not their kind of party, or that they don't have time for parting right now and wander away again.

There are (very rarely) people who get obnoxious and make the party less fun and have to be tossed out.

And there are lurkers who peer in the window to watch the crazy action but just don't feel like wandering inside to join in yet.

Useful metaphor?

Rebecca Lizard has abandoned us? That is bad news. Did she say why?

But you know I wouldn't be here if the Phoenix and the Buffistas were not da Bomb, right?

Yep.

As long as the people who click "recent" know I'm not trying to bust on them.

As beautiful thing as the threadsuck is, sometimes "recent" is the only doable option.

(for I am the queen of conflict avoidance; may all lesser conflict-avoiders bow down before me)

Well Holli, I guess have to take the position of queen mother of conflict avoidance then. At times I have to flee this thread because of the conflict avoidance issue. This is one of my true talents. I have managed to remain close friends with my first DH even after I divorced him after 12 years of marriage to be with another man. I may not thrill anyone with my witticisms, but I doubt I piss people off either. Friends have suggested that I should have been a diplomat.

I don’t feel compelled to attempt to define Buffistas or suggest a metaphor to describe our community. I read the bureaucracy thread because I was raised to participate in my community and I do feel I am a member of this community.

I’m not exactly sure (perhaps because I did massively conflict avoid here recently) what it is we are trying to decide here. Do we have an urgent need to define the community? I get that we are going through the process of discussion and voting to establish some structure and make some decisions. This is a necessary, perhaps evil, business process.

I do strongly feel that what happens in this thread does not define this community. I feel what happens in the other 30+ threads defines us quite nicely.

eta: I think RL is ex because of life schedule pressures.

RL still posts occasionally in the fiction threads.

I don’t feel compelled to attempt to define Buffistas or suggest a metaphor to describe our community. I read the bureaucracy thread because I was raised to participate in my community and I do feel I am a member of this community.

I’m not exactly sure (perhaps because I did massively conflict avoid here recently) what it is we are trying to decide here. Do we have an urgent need to define the community?

Yes. And may I just say, the "who are we" conversation scares me like no other topic we've wrestled around here. I strongly doubt that it will be a productive discussion, and I see a lot of potential for harm.

Gar, that's an excellent analogy.

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

Yes, citizens. And when citizens screw up, they get thrown in jail. Or banned or booted or whatever your word of choice is. There is a difference between a citizen and a good citizen, but until proven otherwise, all citizens get basic rights. Their behavior afterwards shows if they're entitled to keep those rights.

Well, yeah, I'm thinking Connie's right on that. Registration isn't what makes you a spammer; it's posting spam that makes you a spammer. That you may register with full intent to spam is probably a bad thing, but I don't see as how it's preventable till after you post and prove your intent.

Brenda, FWIW, since I think I'm the one who explicitly brought up metaphors this time, I find it valuable to discuss them, every now and then. Partly because they shape the kind of language we use on other Bureaucractic discussion, partly because they give me insight into why everyone else doesn't automatically agree with me, partly because it is cool to open up other people's heads and find out what's inside. The "who are we" thing comes up cyclically, and as long as we're still pondering it, with a multiplicity of answers, I'm OK. I mean, it's dreadful boring on a re-read, because we really do this every two months, but it's a thing.