Please, I beg of you all, can we not call longtime users here "Old Hats?"

There are no old hats in the Buffistas.

There are, for a Buffista, those who came before and those who came after one joined. Some who came before are no longer here, some that came after are more involved than you. And from before and after you there are similar levels of participation.

Buffistas do not have a true hirearchy. Each Buffista builds and molds his or her online presence as if molding a life. Want to participate in Bureaucracy? Participate. Ready for Bitches? Go for it. But you don't have to go full tilt into everything. It's OK. Buffista rise and fall in posting as they see fit. Others either let them or band together to persuade them otherwise.

Buffistas are almost an anarchy, in the literal sense of the word. Everyone participates, or doesn't to his or her own comfort level. Anarchy, however, is not chaos. We have agreed upon certain things and certain codes.

No one here is a god, although some are thought of as gods by words and deeds and personalities. Some have gradually become elevated to stompie footism, but it is not a foregone conclusion based on tenure.

We are Buffistas, and we are a group and individuals all at once.

To recap: those who came before, and those who came after you, have their own before and afters. Do not fear "Old Hat" groupings, as they are unlikely.

We are Buffistas, eternal.

Buffistas do not have a true hirearchy

That's completely untrue. We just don't talk about it in our polite society.

I don't know how successful it was.

I think it's been successful in different ways. But I agree with the article in that there's a difference between being a registered user and a member of the community, and that the core has greater rights, because they by definition care more about the community.

And I'm in the minority on that. It's just where I stand, and it's a cold and lonely corner, but still, I'm totally right.

I agree with you, Allyson. I also think that trying to define core might tear us apart. And we would lose some people that I value. Eventually, by not defining a core, we may also lose people I value.

What's the up side to defining a core? Are there rewards to the community for doing that?

Still with the less is more, over here in this wee corner. If someone's mean, stomp 'em like a bug, but otherwise? Let things tick along as well as they may, without overmuch fiddling. My take, anyway.

I think that the reward is that only a small part of the community is present for decision-making, making it easier and less painful. I am not sure the benefit outweighs the cost.

Buffistas do not have a true hirearchy

That's completely untrue. We just don't talk about it in our polite society.

So, we have a hirearchy, or we have an untrue one?

Wait a sec, that implies I'm someone's pawn, and there's a king and queen, or queens running the joint.

Well, maybe not a pawn. A bishop? Maybe I'm a Knight...

Either way, I got the NGA part of clergy or Galahad down pat.

there's a difference between being a registered user and a member of the community, and that the core has greater rights, because they by definition care more about the community.

Absolutely. But part of the way we stay nice to each other is by having the core membership be self-defining, and mostly unspoken.

So no, we don't talk about it, much, but I don't think that's necessarily a flaw of our Buffista society.

Honestly, I'm not sure why we're talking about it now. Are we currently having a problem?

What's the up side to defining a core? Are there rewards to the community for doing that?

Gold. Lots and lots of gold.

I think some frankencense, but it's a bit too smelly for most.

I just url-hacked to see how many users we have, and freakishly landed on the ID of a friend of mine from another community. I didn't know she had finally joined. Cool!

By the way, we're up to 991 registered IDs.