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.

I really agree with Holli on this. Now, what that means w/r/t voting, etc., I'm not sure. I haven't decided that in my own mind yet.

But when someone posts his/her first post, no matter how friendly and knowledgable, no matter whether they registered and immediately jumped in or if they were a lurker for years, I certainly don't look at Post #1 for New Person and think "Hey, fellow Buffista!" I think "Hey, new person; hope they like it and play with us so I can get to know them."

But, again, I don't know what that means -- in *my* mind -- w/r/t voting.

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.

Holli, you and the F2F-ers will be promming it up at the same time!

Holli, you and the F2F-ers will be promming it up at the same time!

Yeah, but sadly not in the same place. You don't even know how bitter I am about that.

I just wanted to chime in and comment on what Allyson said about recognizing trolls within 3 posts, which I assume has come out of her extensive on-line/fandom experience. I found the comment striking in that, while Zoe didn't tweak anything immediately, I think mieskie's very first post set something off in the pit of my stomach. Bad vibes/ dread, I'm not sure exactly what it was, but I got the same damn feeling when schmoker first posted.

Very eerie. This was all back when I was a compulsive lurker, mind you, but I felt like shouting a warning both times it happened. Except, it seemed to me, not my place - and not a good reason to register. And I'm not sure I'd do it if something similar happened now - accusations of trolldom are...bad form? Presumptuous? I don't know - I am still to new too all this as a contributor I think.

Which is why I guess where I thought I actually had something to say, I'm now not so sure I actually did. Except having lurked a few other places very briefly, I do have to say the Buffistas, wherever they have ended up, have been a wonderful anomaly to most of what I've seen on-line. It's what made me finally de-lurk in the first place.

I would rather have every citizen get a right, then require some minimum amount of activity/posting/friend-making etc.

The thing is, I think you're insisting on a model that doesn't fit the observed behavior.

What do the Buffistas do? We talk.

We don't own tangible property. We don't invest. We don't steal. We don't see each other physically more than once a year. All we do is hang around and talk to each other.

So we don't need a community model that is designed to cope with propinquity, with property rights, with violence. We don't need a structure as robust and complex as a government.

What's the worst thing we can do to a Buffista? Stop letting him talk to us. What's the best thing we can do? COMM him.

And that is why too much attention paid to process gives me the hives. Because it (A) distracts from the real purpose, which is entertaining and informative conversation and (B) tends to become far more emotional and personal than any other kind of discourse here.

Oh - so very much what Betsy said.

I agree that ideally those with more social capital should have a greater say. It's just too hard to find where to draw that line. Of course, that's me again pushing for a solution, and I recognize that.

It's not whether someone "should" or "should not have" a greater say. Some Buffista opinions simply are more influential. This is a social interaction, not government. Because it's a social interaction, we're nuts if we think we can draw too bold of a line, to indicate so-and-so's influence stops (or starts) here.

Everyone gets a say. It is influence in the process that varies. That influence varies according to personality, according to which stage of the process in which we find ourselves, and according to involvement in the process.

What newer people say (I number myself among them) in here and lightbulb isn't going to carry as much weight as the words of a proven entity. That is the way of the world, whether we're talking politics, party planning, restaurant choices, or whether or not your butt looks good in those jeans.

For the record - I think we should ease up on process discussion and instead, give it time to see if it works. I don't see this as a "Who Are We - Where Are We Going" discussion, even though I think it has billed itself as such. This is another rehash of voting, consensus, gang-of-14 (or 8 elephants, or the analogy du jour). This is navel gazing, but we're looking at a part of the navel that's already been picked raw. There's plenty of lint in other crevices of this navel.

A "Who Are We..." discussion needs to look at (hopefully more interesting) things like:

• Now that BtVS is over what's our pop-culture focus?

• How M.E.-centric is it?

• How M.E.-centric should it be?

• Do M.E. alum focused conversations fall under an M.E. heading?

• Should they?

• Does it matter?

• How can we love-on Tim?

• How many Buffy threads do we need?

• If we close a bunch of Buffy threads, do we want to open an equal number of new threads, or do we want to let attrition help us fight bloat?

• Where are the donuts?

• What are you wearing? Is that PVC?

What are you wearing? Is that PVC?

I move that this be our Post-ME Mission Statement.

I move that this be our Post-ME Mission Statement.

Seconded

Unless you were being serious.

Unless you were being serious.

Sometimes the difference is negligible.

Wolfram, I'm one of the people that thinks you are pushing too much here in this thread and I realize that it's probably just a personality conflict but you come on so strong and it puts some people's backs up including my own.

When you posted about Immoratlisation/Immoratlization I had no idea what you were posting about at first, except that you'd once again found someway we'd done something wrong in your eyes. My hackles were raised and I went into defensive mode.

It was such an aggressive way to ask if there'd been a typo.

If you'd simply said "I noticed that in the FAQ 'Immortalization' is spelled with an s, I was wondering if that was a typo." Instead you posted the definitions of both words, which I saw as the implication that when the FAQ was made we (because it was a collective process) didn't know the difference between the two words.

askye, I'm hearing what you're saying, and I'm even seeing your point. I tend to be a knee-jerk reactor type, myself.

Thing is, we all know Wolfram a little better these days. He's made a dedicated effort to be known in more threads than the right-hand ones. He does write some personality-revealing posts, and I think since he has made the effort and done the work to learn and practice Buffista-monkey-grooming techniques, we can accept him as he presents himself here.

By that I mean that when I read a post of his that provokes an automatic hackles-up response, I look at the id and go--oh, that's how he talks. What's he actually mean? Don't we do that with everybody? Don't we eventually learn "tone" and "attitude" about regular posters? Don't we pick up on when somebody is in a foul mood or a tough emotional place and ask what's up, cut some slack, or suggest a time-out? Wolfram should be no different.

It's a posting style. Some of us are cuddly. Some of us are not. Some of us ramble, some are pointy.

Just my two cents.