My gazebo brings all the boys to the yard.

Where they attack your gazebo with their longswords?

The social capital concept...often used to excuse rude behaviour. ...This is a clique.

If the above is accepted SOP, should it be noted in Ettiquette?

Given the above, the below proved misleading, at least to me:

The Buffistas are an inclusive, welcoming, and flame-free community. ...If you make personal attacks or offensive posts, or try to start a fight, you will be shunned.

People have been rude to me, and because of a history (which is what builds social capital, naturally), I've a) not been offended, or b) just let it slide.

Guess who benefitted? The community.

Guess what else? Happens all the time, everywhere, and to codify that would be micro-detailing human nature. The etiquette document is not a sociology/psychology double major thesis.

I apologize. [remainder of post deleted b/c Steph found it rude and flame baity]

Rafmun, that's rude and flame-baity. Please keep your discourse civil.

I failed to understand that members of the clique are guided by other guidelines.

You're misinterpreting Steph's post. She didn't mean that there is a clique WITHIN the community, she meant that the community itself is a clique. There's no inner circle. "The clique" means everyone who posts.

is not used to justify rude behavior, which is what you're suggesting, Java. I think what you're seeing is that it's often used to excuse it

I'm not seeing much of a difference.

If it's unacceptable behaivor to, say, make a personal insult it's still unacceptable even if the person has done good things for the group.

In fact, to me it's a little worse. A person who's a fixture around here DOES know better. If anything, the apology and any amends should be all the quicker because of that knowledge and investment in the community.

There's no inner circle. "The clique" means everyone who posts.

Of COURSE there is an innner circle.

A minute ago that was declared alright. It is alright, as long as they don't push people around and get excused for it.

And I really think calling Rafmun a troll and/or a flamer is inappropriate and does not add to the discourse. It's also inaccurate, he's been around, he cares about this place, he is making important points. One may not AGREE with him, but he's not here to stir poo and laugh.

If it's unacceptable behaivor to, say, make a personal insult it's still unacceptable even if the person has done good things for the group.

Are there really all that many personal insults here? That's a serious question. When I think of instances in which "social capital" is applied to excuse a situation it's more often a misunderstanding, OR much MUCH more often a case where someone makes a strong statement that other people disagree with. Such as:

Hec: "I had the worst fucking experience with the person who edited my book -- what a controlling asswipe. Typical editor."

[NB: I'm an editor, so that's the basis for my hackneyed example.]

I could either call Hec out as a jerk, demand an apology, warn him in-thread, OR cut him some slack, *because* I've known him for a long time (or what feels like a long time....) and I know that he's not given to nasty broad-based ad hominems, and he's more than likely not personally attacking me.

It's happened a good deal here. I remember a heated "The military SUCKS!" "*I* have a brother in the military!" mini-fluffle, and I think some social capital was applied there by some people.

Rafmun, apology accepted. Thanks for that. I mean it.