Or perhaps it is because a few very prolific and increasingly agressive posters have succeeded in marginalizing some very long-term members who were happy to engage in productive and constructive discussion when it was truly about give-and-take, but who became frustrated that their willingness to concede points and move to compromise seemed increasingly exploited to satisfy the few, to the point where they just don't bother even debating much anymore b/c they see the conclusion as forgone anyway.

Wow. I mean, it's possible I'm blind to the truth, but I have no idea who you're talking about here. If you're not talking about anyone in particular, I'm perfectly willing to discount what you're saying. If there are actual people who feel this way, I'd like to know who they are.

I'm an activist poster and I don't have a problem with that. I have no issues with coming here with a request for change or a request for how things are done.

Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't that what Bureau is for?

I'd argue everyone who posts in Bureau is an activist poster because they are taking action in how they want the community to run. Why is that a bad thing?

Sure. I impose my will. But if I don't, then I am in situation where I want to leave. If I find something annoying, the point where I want to do or say something really regrettable and I ask for a change in behavior, why is that a bad thing?

Is the response to just leave better?

I care about this community. I have opinions on how it should run. And I am not afraid or shamed into admitting it, nor am I particularly concerned with being perceived as an activist.

Some of my heroes are activists too.

I do not like confrontation either. when I posted here yesterday, I had to think, debate and consider whether it was a good idea to hit the Post message button, fearing that I what I'm saying might be taken the wrong way or anger someone. I'm not as strong willed as some, nor do I just shake off criticism. My feelings are easily hurt so I bite my tongue (fingers?) more often than I contribute.

Hey all. Just dropping in to say Hi. Sounds like acrimony is in the air.

I was just thinking about you the other day, Phill! How the hell are ya?

Megan, do you often wish someone else would make your point? I mean, much of the time if I wait before commenting, someone else makes my point, and I feel fine about not putting my 2 cents in. Is that your experience as well? (Seriously, I'm just wondering what the experience of less loud-mouthed people is. Because god knows, nine out of ten times, I make my own point.)

Jesse, above, posts for me.

Yes, Jesse I do. and if someone does post my feelings, then I will generally say "me too!" If not, then most likely I'll keep quiet.

Either option produces a board that seems less tense. But if there is any truth to the latter, at what cost?

Honestly, what are you proposing? Putting a gag on people who post....assertively?

Like, msbelle, I prefer the civil and thoughtful discussion (laced with wit) to the hot exchanges. When I thought the board as a whole could be less harsh with newbies, I raised the issue over here. Not because I expected it to be acted upon by a vote, or consensus - but simply to raise the issue. To bring attention to the idea of tone. Because, as Shawn notes, we will always revisit the issue of who we are and how we behave. We need to, because the population turns over and the context of the board changes.

We've been through this before. When Joss first posted here, it brought on a huge influx of people who weren't in tune with our culture here. Some people became alienated and left. People left when we instituted voting. People left when enacted disciplinary measures. And people leave because it's a big (beautiful) timesuck. But the community remains.

Rafmun - I really appreciated your earlier post, because it made me think, but...

Or perhaps it is because a few very prolific and increasingly agressive posters have succeeded in marginalizing some very long-term members who were happy to engage in productive and constructive discussion when it was truly about give-and-take, but who became frustrated that their willingness to concede points and move to compromise seemed increasingly exploited to satisfy the few, to the point where they just don't bother even debating much anymore b/c they see the conclusion as forgone anyway.

have you considered that the long-term posters who are marginalized are in the minority?

Also, it cannot be about give and take if one set of people remove themselves from the discussion.

The most recent ACTIONABLE thing discussed here (I believe) was the posts in Press. Nothing was actually decided as a change in rule. People expressed opinions and I am sure people were bothered on both sides, but nobody had to change anything. I could post everyday that I want the background pink. It would not happen. I could say the white annoys me, I could say it is fucking stupid, I could say it causes me anguish and I don't have the time to have my moments here at b.org not be as pleasant to me as possible. It wouldn't change.

To be more specific. I could ask Jesse to make her tag read "msbelle RAWKS.". I could even tell her to change it. I could bitch, whine, plead, beg. She is the only one that can decide to change it.

Neither situation would ever move to a vote, and my behaviour would not be in violation of any rules.