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.

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.

I agree with you on the first clause, Allyson, maybe not so much on the second. At least, not structurally. Someone who is an active member of multiple threads and who has built that participation into a presence on the board as a whole has no greater rights here, at least as I'd define them. Nothing absolute and objective that could be pointed to.

However by the same token that person might get more flexibility and leeway from the rest of the board. That's a subjective, intermittent thing, though, and it can be lost or invalidated by their own behavior. We all participate at the sufferance of our fellow members.

I also disagree that whatever "rights" inhere to a "core member" do so because they care about the community. Someone who's been here a while and participated in a number of boards may be doing so for their own entertainment, and not because they have an abstract fondness for Buffistas.org as an entity on the net. For all you know, I don't give a damn about this place as a community, but only because it's funny and fast-moving and supplies me my RDA of porn.

but still, I'm totally right

Go you for sticking to your opinions, but I think what we have is a balancing act, as described by Shirky in the article, between keeping the community functioning and keeping the individuals happy by sticking to our premise of inclusion and equality. You're going for functionality (and you're not alone, I'm sure), where others here are still trying to be idealists.

I do think this article is a good example of the sort of reading we need to do, though, as we struggle through the growth and definition of this community. Shirky comes down harder on functionality than I would (or ita does), and doesn't see the possible polarizing effects of the caste system he advocates, but the community progression he describes is both familiar and somewhat demoralizing. (And yes, he doesn't mention death-by-obsolesence, which I've seen a couple of times by now in various fora.)

Anyway. Back to my spreadsheets.