People! Content! Content! Content!

And in the service of illustrating potential lurkers, here's a nation breakdown of June visitors:

#HitsCountry

1150032Network 2123118US Commercial 357965Unresolved/Unknown 427671US Educational 516600Canada 69184Australia 75515US Government 85435United Kingdom 94028Non-Profit Organization 102996Israel 11917New Zealand (Aotearoa) 12665Netherlands 13554Germany 14308United States 15293Switzerland 16275Ireland 17133Japan 1876Spain 1970France 2049Argentina 2126Denmark 2220Russian Federation 2315US Military 2414Niue 2513Italy 2611Sweden 2710United Arab Emirates 2810Belgium 299Mexico 306Qatar

eta: this is the top 30 of 43 countries

Mmm ... porn

/newbie semi-lurker posting in Bureau

That's an impressive list.

here's a nation breakdown of June visitors:

For curiosity's sake of the tech challenged, how are those locations arrived at? IP addresses?

UAE. Qatar. It is to laugh.

Yup ... tracing back IPs to nationalities.

So far this month (and this really blows my mind) besides the US, it says:

• Canada
• Israel
• United Kingdom
• Australia
• Switzerland
• Netherlands
• Japan
• Germany
• Spain
• Austria
• Hong Kong
• New Zealand (Aotearoa)

Niue?

I just learned something.

UAE. Qatar. It is to laugh.

I was thinking that the stompies would now probably be subject to arrest if we ever actually went to one of those countries, given some of the laws about content they have over there.

cancels Qatarian visa

The last vote I counted, I think about 5 lurkers voted. And I think I knew some of them from former TT days and others because they donated money for the Pheonix. So I think those voters are invested but shy. I see no way to cut out random lurkers who want to take over Buffistas (which I don't think would happen-- I think asshats would post) without cutting out those people who I think are just shy or busy (think of katefate, too busy to post).

What bothers me is that there are many Buffistas that were so frustated with the process we went to to get to the vote, or the fact that we vote, that they won't vote. It was sort of what made me want to go into a room by myself and come up with the perfect system, because the discussion bothered people so much.

Interesting article. It hit upon so many things we've discussed in Bureaucracy over the years: creating rules to create rules, the need for structure/constitution, pure democracy/anarchy/libertarian stances vs. status conferred by longevity, activity, group contribution, the effect of scale on the group dynamic and discussion.

All Buffistas Are Foamy is a part of our culture. As noted, it's a social lubricant and part of our style or etiquette. It helps elevate the tone and creates a welcoming atmoshpere. Civility has always been a high value for this group, and I think that's a bit of culture which we've tried to encode a bit with rules to enforce it. The article notes that the best structure is both formal and informal. That's something that the long time sysops/admins pushed for - not making the rules too specific.

There is and has always been some tension between the folks who enjoy discussion of structure and rules versus the folks that find any infringement on their actions/words very itchy making. Frankly, we've handled that very well. This tension will always be there, will never be resolved one way or the other and that is for the best. Except when it makes us tense.

I think Jess phrased it best by noting that there are folks who have earned their status within the group by their contributions, but this isn't formalized and it's considered a bit rude to insist upon your status. But it doesn't go unacknowledged either. It's a bit of social sleight of hand which both allows that functional status (and celebrates it), while encouraging a fairly level social field for interaction. That seems like a positive to me.