I also think creating a system of government without leadership is odd.

I don't think we have either citizenship (since the barrier to entry is so low) nor government.

But there is some leadership, yeah.

eta: I don't think voting is a privilege, per se, or no more one than chiming in on a consensus was.

I think we don't have formal leadership, but certainly during the process of deciding to vote, some people became leaders in for that process. Some people are leaders in Technical Stuff. Some people are leaders in charity drives, others in planning F2F.

And we do actually have leadership here, in the form of social status, and I don't really get why that is so repugnant an idea.

I guess I'm not sure what you want done about it. I know this is supposed to be a theoretical conversation, but I'm not sure why people agreeing "okay, yeah, some Buffistas are more important than others" and having that be that isn't enough.

Let's say we got together a list of the 20 Buffistas with the most social capital and everyone admitted that they were the leaders. What would they theoretically do?

Just what they usually do. (Which, I think, is your point.)

I guess I'm not sure what you want done about it.

I was under the impression that this was a theoretical discussion, and not an "I want a solution" discussion. Did I miss something, somewhere?

Like JessPMoon, I had to struggle for a bit to think about what the tension was in May. Perhaps because I wasn't feeling tense. And you know what, I'm still not clear if I'm thinking about the same things.

I will say that the several weeks of voting on voting on voting for things made me crazy and I'm relieved to see we aren't reacting the same way. If we had just continually voted, I would want to cease and desist with the voting.

And dunno who said it upthread, but All Buffistas Are Foamy, for me, is not an elevation of conversation. But quite the opposite. It's social lubricant, that much is true. But it has the exact opposite effect of elevating.

Did I miss something, somewhere?

To me, the way you worded what I quoted above seemed to be demanding an admission of some kind.

If we're all just posting to hear the sound of our own voices, than nevermind.

No, Jessica, I was pleading for understanding.

Sounded to me that Allyson was doing the what the rest of us were, stating her opinion. I didn't get a hectoring tone from it. I don't agree with her strongly and clearly worded opinion, but that I am sure ain't no big with her, she still lurves me and stuff.

I'm fond of the lurkers too. As I've mentioned before, I think of them as the angels in Wings of Desire.

So this means the de-lurkers who become contributors are Peter Falk? Cool - that's the best compliment I've been paid in a long yard.

Also finding this discussion fascinating. Anything I want to say at this juncture, though, would sound inflammatory when I would just be attempting interesting. There are negatives to being a knee-jerk Devil's advocate - especially when you see ways to be provocative on both sides.