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...

Hey! I slaughtered a chicken tonight. Okay, Shaws slaughtered it (but kindly left its innards inside, and not in a little white baggie, either!) but I stuck an onion up its butt and cooked it and it is yummy.

"All Buffistas are foamy" is like "All men are created equal." It's not actually true. We know it's not true. But it's a nice way to act, and it's a nice way to think. And because we're not handling nuclear weapons, there's little chance that the guy who got the less-than-equal share of brains will be in a particularly dangerous position.

Do coders and admins have special privileges? Functionally, yes (they have the keys). Socially, probably (we are glad they hold the keys so charmingly). Does anybody who volunteers to do a job we all think needs doing have a type of social privilege? Yes, because people are (naturally) grateful.

Hey you! Biffy Buffista! Want some instant status, and opportunities for friend-making? Volunteer when someone needs helpers!

He takes a sip of tequila at mignight, and thanks the frelling stars that, for all the "wackiness" that ensues in bureaucracy, the Buffistas are out there, somewhere.

He takes a sip of tequila at mignight, and thanks the frelling stars that, for all the "wackiness" that ensues in bureaucracy, the Buffistas are out there, somewhere.

Finding our own — *hem hem* — Serenity.

I stuck an onion up its butt and cooked it and it is yummy.

Nutty's Chicken Butt recipe. I'd cross the road for it.

I'm fully realizing that I'm the only one thinking this way. AND I'M STILL RIGHT SO THERE!

I suspect Allyson of being in a really good mood. Am I reading too much in?

Jon B snatched the good quote about needing to have rules for making rules. I also got this from the following paragraph:

"The likelihood that any unmoderated group will eventually get into a flame-war about whether or not to have a moderator approaches one as time increases."

Lastly, I am looking for volunteers to buy me a plane ticket to Fiji so I can post in the UnAmericans thread. Help me out, I promise there's some instant status in it for you.

Connie's political theory

The phrase "all men are created equal" had to be stated flatly in various political documents because, functionally, men are not created equal. But the hierarchies of perceived ability and privilege have a nasty tendency to treat those of less ability and privilege as sub-creatures. The mob-rule of pure democracy also has its downsides, which is why it's a good thing when major issues can't be decided by who yells the loudest.

I'm smarter than 90% of hte people out there, maybe more. Depends on who I run across on my morning commute. But that moronic idiot who passed me, weaved into the fast lane, then crossed three lanes of traffic to the exit still gets a voice in whatever debate comes up.

Cabals/core groups with special privileges that transcend practical responsibilities/inner circles rarely benefit a community at large.

The above is the opinion of connie neil, unsuspecting populist, who gets a nasty lump in her gut when people start saying "Well, of course, some of us deserve a bigger say because, you know, we care more than the other people etc."

The phrase "all men are created equal" is actually true, but it requires one to be using very specific, very steeped-in-law-and-natural-rights definitions for both the words "men" and "equal". It doesn't mean that the comatose somehow get to vote, and it doesn't refer to equality of wealth or intelligence or even of opportunity.

Yes, I do spend a lot of time reading libertarian theory. What of it?

That article was indeed fascinating. However, I belong to one group (on Shirky's dead Usenet, no less!) that, as far as I can tell, has barely had minor back pains over almost any of the things discussed in the article. The elders became the elders-with-authority (mostly unspoken) without a big argument, no one was ever dying for moderation, etc. It's almost enough to make me wish that I had the drive to examine it further.

I'm smarter than 90% of hte people out there, maybe more. Depends on who I run across on my morning commute. But that moronic idiot who passed me, weaved into the fast lane, then crossed three lanes of traffic to the exit still gets a voice in whatever debate comes up.

In a democracy - a people governed government? Absolutely. In a social group? Not so sure. Think about your meat-space circle of friends. It's quite likely that not just anyone is welcome. If the circle is an extremely open one, it's still more likely than not, that some people who are introduced into it are not going to fit. Most of them will leave on their own, or not even get to the point where their absence is noticed. Mary Sue came to a party, but nobody invited her to any more, and she didn't fish for invitations, either. The ones who don't fit but don't seem to realize it on their own, will be marginalized by the group to the point that, even if they continue to hang on, their presence will hold little-to-no sway over the workings of the group (except in a passive way, because the group has to sort of enact work-arounds, to make sure the the non-fitter doesn't have much sway over the group).

Cabals/core groups with special privileges that transcend practical responsibilities/inner circles rarely benefit a community at large.

Again, in a government sense, I agree. In a social sense, I can't even think of an instance of any social group of my acquaintance that doesn't have core members. Old members will leave the core; new(er) ones will be accepted into it, but there are always the planners, the star attractions, and the special helper sorts of people that have more group-cred, because of who they are and what they do. It's not always/usually conscious. It's not always/usually intentional. It's just so. It's social politics.