That's an impressive list.
You got all kinds of learnin' and you made me look the fool without tryin', and yet here I am with a gun to your head. That's 'cause I got people with me. People who trust each other, who do for each other, and ain't always lookin' for the advantage.
Mal ,'Our Mrs. Reynolds'
Bureaucracy 2: Like Sartre, Only Longer
A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
candyb - Jul 02, 2003 11:59:46 am PDT #2813 of 10005
bon bon - Jul 02, 2003 12:03:27 pm PDT #2814 of 10005
It's five thousand for kissing, ten thousand for snuggling... End of 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.
§ ita § - Jul 02, 2003 12:05:17 pm PDT #2815 of 10005
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
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)
sarameg - Jul 02, 2003 12:06:01 pm PDT #2816 of 10005
Niue?
I just learned something.
DXMachina - Jul 02, 2003 12:06:53 pm PDT #2817 of 10005
You always do this. We get tipsy, and you take advantage of my love of the scientific method.
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.
§ ita § - Jul 02, 2003 12:07:27 pm PDT #2818 of 10005
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
cancels Qatarian visa
Sophia Brooks - Jul 02, 2003 12:07:36 pm PDT #2819 of 10005
Cats to become a rabbit should gather immediately now here
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.
DavidS - Jul 02, 2003 12:15:25 pm PDT #2820 of 10005
"Look, son, if it's good enough for Shirley Bassey, it's good enough for you."
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.
Lyra Jane - Jul 02, 2003 12:16:22 pm PDT #2821 of 10005
Up with the sun
Nutty - Jul 02, 2003 12:23:21 pm PDT #2822 of 10005
"Mister Spock is on his fanny, sir. Reports heavy damage."
Cats to become a rabbit should gather immediately now here
Sophia, so curious about your tagline.
I am recalling the frustration of early May, and I'm recalling that I was then and continue to be a little mystified by it. Can those who expressed doubts then explain how they came to such a head, so suddenly? Because my perception of the discussion was that suddenly everyone wasn't just exhausted with the last parts of building new rules, they were disenchanted, and it was starting to affect how they saw everything bureaucratic. I had more that one person say to me (some public, some private) that they thought the new-thread-creation process didn't work, and I was like, How can it work? We've never tried it!
Now that we've tried it, are Bureaucrats everywhere satisfied with the new-thread-creation process? (I think it worked fine, voting hijinks notwithstanding.) Are people feeling better, generally, about Bureaucracy, or is the recent silence a "I can't deal with this" silence?
Just, you know, taking the temperature of the thread, hoping, like Sophia, to derive perfect solutions and be all things to all people.