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.

yeah, I lurves scrappy in unholy yet righteous ways.

Ken, it's okay for advocating for the devil. we're discussing, not arguing, i think.

I agree that there is leadership, and the fact is that, as Lessig notes, the person in cyberspace with the tech code can create the legal code. (If you're really interested in the constitutions of online community, Lessig is the guy to be reading.) I think it's probably for the best that none of that is made more explicit or more powerful than it has to be, in part because that allows people who want to claim power within the community to do so through action rather than through, say, electioneering.

Hey, DavidS, do you mind if I steal your metaphor for my tag?