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

I think it's because people read that article and were discussing the concepts therein.

EDIT: whope wrong paste pasted, fixed.

DCJ, do you mean to be quoting someone that's not me there?

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

Thank you, Ms.Moon, for defining my perception more clearly. Yes. What PMoon said.

Already fixed it, ita.

I think we reverted back to core at People's Forum, when decisions had to be made quickly. The F2F threads were created without a vote, for example. There wasn't a vote about using the Fangeek server (I think that was covered earlier in discussion about tech emergencies, but could be mistaken).

Also, a lot of tension seemed to have melted and we were none to quick about having these sorts of discussions when we came back. I found it all fascinating.

Also known as, we are happy to remain an amorphous blob. I like not-defining our formal definitions of status, just the way I like our making definitions of "offensive" relational. You know, if it works, we use it, till it stops working (or we forget that we were using it and have to start all over again, and then Nilly and feel very stupid). I'm cool with that.

But part of the way we stay nice to each other is by having the core

yes, this.

I think we don't define core by name, but by actions, and how we react and post to one another. It's unspoken, but it is the rhino in a tu tu sitting in the corner, always.

It's defined in the article as people who care the most about the community. The people that care the most, that have the most at stake, do have greater rights, and we give them freely without thinking about it. The core gets responses, greater in frequency and more passionate in tone than other users. Sometimes a troll is in the core, for that reason.

Also, a lot of tension seemed to have melted and we were none to quick about having these sorts of discussions when we came back. I found it all fascinating.

I was pretty fascinated by this, too. When we got booted over to PF for those weeks, this very thread was a hotbed of tension and snark.

Since we've been back, this thread has been dead for all intents and purposes.

Not sure what, if anything, that means, other than that we seem to be at our best when we're just being us, rather than worrying over the rules, methods and procedures that allow us to be us.

Well, to be fair, this thread became dead because there was only one properly pending action (the Minearverse thread) when we got sent to PF; and everything else people said, "Oh wait, let's not talk about this till after the F2F"... and we just haven't brought things back up again yet. (Fear not; we will.)

I think we don't define core by name, but by actions, and how we react and post to one another. It's unspoken, but it is the rhino in a tu tu sitting in the corner, always.

I'm not sure how this differs from ordinary human interaction? "We" -- as individuals -- make these decisions every day, about our bosses, our neighbors, our second cousins. Until "we" unify and become an expressly same-thinking cabal, it's all just individuals reacting to each other. There may be trends and tendencies among Buffistas' thinking, but I suspect we're all a little too half-assed to assemble a proper cabal.

The only pending issue I remember was the Tim thread vote, which we finished.

Are there others I just blocked out?