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?

We've got a ladles-and-jellyspoons agreement not to talk about thread consolidation/retirement till late summer, closer to the TV season beginning. That's the big one I'm thinking of.

I'm not sure how this differs from ordinary human interaction?

YES (empahtically jumping out of seat). But Buffistas have tried to be extraordinary by trying to squash that ordinary interaction and force a same thinking cabal. It's the "All Buffistas Are Foamy" think. Not all Buffistas are foamy, special, bright, nice, or any of the other positive adjectives we place on any halfwit or genius that can manage to register and post.

Some Buffistas are more attractive, brighter, funnier, nicer, ruder, smellier, and don't care much about the community, or care too much. All subjective, of course, but All Buffistas Are Foamy is part of our All Buffistas Are Equal illusion.

It's in the trying so hard to ignore, squash, eradicate the natural human behavior of creating heirarchy that we end up making me crazy. But like I said, I'm fully realizing that I'm the only one thinking this way. AND I'M STILL RIGHT SO THERE!

I totally agree that some Buffistas are smarter, kinder, what-have-you-er than others, but I don't think those excellent qualities give them special rights, is all. I value some Buffistas more than others, but that's my subjective opinion, and I am sure that there are those I value highly that someone else doesn't care for at all, so it evens out. Those who do the most direct work on this board are in a special category, because we owe our existence to them.

All Buffistas Are Foamy is part of our All Buffistas Are Equal illusion.

I guess my point was that it's a functional illusion. It irritates the living fuck out of me at times too, but it's part of our social lubricant.

Those who do the most direct work on this board are in a special category, because we owe our existence to them.

They are, and there's heirarchy. If those folks say, "the server blows, we're going to upgrade and need 500 bucks and oral sex from 8 of you to do this" we'll just say okay. No questions asked. They're universally respected, can make decisions for the technical health of the community (which is our life's blood), and are more likely to be showered with gifts, adoration, get more responses and do have more rights. I can't edit your posts, Scrappy. I can't ban you because you've spammed the board ala Christian Dollar Store.

I can't get away with being more of an asshole than some folks, and less of an asshole than others. You neither. Them's rights as I see it.

The right to be a jerk and not get called on it is a right. Somehow, I earned the right to speak for Buffistas when I write to charities. No one's ever said, "Hey Allyson, I'd like you to to take the name "Buffistas" off of that letter and just replace it with the folks who donated because I didn't vote for you to speak for me, you don't have that right."

And if some stranger came here and collected money for the Bush Reelection committee, and got twenty-eight people to donate, and then wrote the check on behalf of Buffistas, that I think, would be cause for alarm. (I don't think I could get away with that one either, but it was an exaggeration).

But Buffistas have tried to be extraordinary by trying to squash that ordinary interaction and force a same thinking cabal. It's the "All Buffistas Are Foamy" think.

See, I don't agree, I'm sorry. Saying "All Buffistas are Foamy" is a funny, nice thing to say. (I don't think anyone here really thinks that everyone who posts on the board meets all the subjective standards for beauty in western culture.)

It's just, as Jess says, social lubricant, and a way of making ourselves feel special. We're a better place to be because Buffistas are better spellers/foamier/funnier than other places. Even if we aren't (but we are *grin*).

I also really disagree on this right-thinking idea. It's clear from the discussions in this very thread that for just about any given topic, people on the board are going to disagree. If a majority come down on one side versus another, that's a function of having a multiplicity of options: it's highly unlikely you'll have perfectly balanced numbers on both (or all) sides of an issue.

This doesn't mean that those who disagree with the majority aren't allowed to hold their opinion. There isn't a Right Thinking Way here. (Except for the foamiosity of ita, which is canonical.) We're allowed to disagree, we're encouraged to argue (try to stop us, in fact!), and sometimes we even change one another's minds.

I'm not in lockstep with anyone, generally, and I don't think anyone else is either.

As for the heirarchy idea, I see what you're saying but there is a down side to it (as there is to the current structure), which is why we have to date avoided institutionalizing it. And for good reason, but that's just my opinion, and YBMV.

If the day comes where the membership of the board agrees that there should be a hierarchy with associated special privileges and rights on the board, and is willing to deal with the associated costs of such a system, then we'll do that. But we're not there at this point.

Heh. Reading the last 40 posts or so in this thread makes me feel like the author of that article signed us up to give examples of the group behavior he mentioned.