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.

the server blows

Hey hey now. Could we pick a different hypothetical that's less fate-tempting, please?

*waits for Mercedes to freak out*

Hey hey now

I was TOTALLY thinking of HostRocket, I swear.

Throw some salt over your shoulder or something, just in case.

See, I just have problems with any hierarchy that doesn't have me at the the very tippy top of it, where I belong.

But no one else sees things this way, which has been a sore trial to me, I tell you.

I'll slaughter a chicken if someone else tosses the salt.

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.

Eh, there is and there isn't. I don't think it's a conscious thing, but there are times (like the discussion of offensive language) when I've felt very uncomfortable and started to wonder where the line on what's offensive was going to be drawn. I'm a little overly-sensitive to acute language sensitivity, mind, as a result of going to TESC, where it was taken to extremes that would make my head spin and make me afraid to open my mouth.

So, when discussions like that start up, I'll watch and keep quiet, because they can get heated, and there does seem to be an assumption of moral superiority on the part of some people during them. (Again, personal impressions, and I don't think any of it's an intentional thing, just the strength of belief showing through.) It does feel a lot like "think this way, or you are a BAD person. BAD!"

See, I just have problems with any hierarchy that doesn't have me at the the very tippy top of it, where I belong.

But no one else sees things this way, which has been a sore trial to me, I tell you.

Scrappy is me. And probably many of us.

Which goes a long way towards explaining why trying to steer the Good Ship B.org can be so daunting sometimes.

I'll slaughter a chicken if someone else tosses the salt.

Just don't tie it to balloons.

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

I think the reason for that is found in Shirky's piece:

And the worst crisis is the first crisis, because it's not just "We need to have some rules." It's also "We need to have some rules for making some rules." And this is what we see over and over again in large and long-lived social software systems. Constitutions are a necessary component of large, long-lived, heterogenous groups.... As a group commits to its existence as a group, and begins to think that the group is good or important, the chance that they will begin to call for additional structure, in order to defend themselves from themselves, gets very, very high.

We made it through that first crisis. It was tough, but we have a system in place for voting on important issues and dealing with disruptive users. Sure, there will be new crises, but I truly believe that the worst is behind us.

Which reminds that that I still haven't posted Nutty's rules summary. I'll get to it soon. Promise...