Oh, Snacky, you said that Nutty brought you here, but I had no idea you had a law coined and all. Yay you.

(OK, really stopping to natter and back to catching up)

Ah, thanks. So it's a baseless attempt at character assassination to discredit the other side's position using broad generalities and subjective factors that are, due to lack of definition and specificity, impossible to refute.

Now I'm off to find something to nibble on.

Uh, if my editor is lurking here, Teppy just made that up in the example upthread.

Susan, thanks for the Christine Edgar update. I'm so glad she's doing well. If you can send her our regards from the Buffistas where she is fondly remembered.

I'm really heartened to know that Allyson took seriously the fallout from her kerfuffle with Jen and has made a continuing thoughtful effort to find the right words. Because, upthread she was saying, "Not gonna change" which only captures her knowing her own character, but doesn't reflect the fact that she reflected on things and did make some changes.

Suela's point about the fluidity of social capital is very apt. There's no central bank - just individual opinions. And, I don't know why people think it's a dirty phrase - it just describes something that happens; it's not a program, or an excuse or a pecking order. It's just one way to describe a dynamic. And as I said before (very similar to Trudy's hippie ideals) it's about what you can contribute to the community, not about Get Out Of Kerfuffle Free cards.

I posted (once) in the first Buffy thread.

I'll amend the list!

And, as I said a couple hundred posts ago, I don't think there's anything actionable from this conversation. But it was still a useful conversation from my perspective.

We have one clear cause-and-effect example. I think it's safe to assume that it probably left a bad taste in some mouths that just stopped coming around.

Trudy, you do this every time we have one of these big debates in here.

Please, please, PLEASE STOP bringing in imaginary, unnamed people who may or may not have been driven away by something without speaking up about it because we have NO WAY OF PROVING THEY EXIST.

It only serves to make the discussion pointless, and drives it off track.

And it really upsets people.

I'm really heartened to know that Allyson took seriously the fallout from her kerfuffle with Jen and has made a continuing thoughtful effort to find the right words. Because, upthread she was saying, "Not gonna change" which only captures her knowing her own character, but doesn't reflect the fact that she reflected on things and did make some changes.

Well, I'm still going to be as "aggressive" as whatever. But not so much violent.

Uh, if my editor is lurking here, Teppy just made that up in the example upthread.

Note to Hec's editor (who, from my example, wouldn't have been able to identify "Hec" as the author he edits) -- I didn't mean you.

As far as you know.

Well, I'm still going to be as "aggressive" as whatever. But not so much violent.

That seems like an important distinction to me. As Xanderella said, the board has fiercely protective warriors and nurturing hand-holders and both are essential or this space wouldn't be what it is.

As for the back-channel issue, those of us who have LJs and blogs and AIM and IRC and mailing lists don't all run in the same circles any more than those of us who live in geographic proximity see each other every week. And that's okay. Let's not propogate this concept that there's an invisible cabal of people out to run the board/community/fandom.

This issue was a few posts ago, but it bears repeating, and I'd like to take it further. People who think they are on the "outside" see a lot more cohesion and harmony than is actually here. What may appear to be BFF!!! among prolific posters is not, in fact, the case. And the fact that people can maintain civility with other prolific posters they dislike is one of the reasons they stay here and are...prolific posters.

If it really is the case that there are bullies on this board? Most people would find that distasteful and they would lose a lot of respect (social capital). Nor would they be a bully very long because they have lost that.

Anyway, IMO and IME it's simply impossible for there to be a central group who like and respect each other. That's what it looks like, but that's not what it is. I'm surprised you take it as a given, Trudy, because you have been here long enough to know better than I do what divisions lie beneath the surface here.

I bring this up only b/c above posters suggest that if you don't speak up when you have an issue, you have only yourself to blame. So in that spirit:

People who think they are on the "outside" see a lot more cohesion and harmony than is actually here...

Actually, Trudy summed up what she and I (presumably two posters "on the outside") believed, with this:

...but there's no organization to it and I didn't see any implication that there was. Nobody is saying there is some sort of Buffista Illuminati.

The whole cabal thing was brought up by a few 'inside' posters, and has somehow become accepted as fact regarding what some of the 'outside' posters think. It is not. At least not by me - or as far as I can tell from her words, for Trudy either.

Rafmun, I think it started here. Way back, you said this:

It seems from an outside perspective that it has become more important to a small minority of posters to impose their feelings on the board than make the board better for the group.

I misinterpreted you with this:

I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, but your post seems to imply that there's a secret subversive gang that tries to impose its will on the rest of the community. There isn't.

Trudy called me on it with this:

IMHO there are individuals who try to impose their will, but there's no organization to it and I didn't see any implication that there was. Nobody is saying there is some sort of Buffista Illuminati.

And you've set the record straight many times but most recently with this:

The whole cabal thing was brought up by a few 'inside' posters, and has somehow become accepted as fact regarding what some of the 'outside' posters think. It is not. At least not by me - or as far as I can tell from her words, for Trudy either.

I believe you meant each poster of the "small minority" individually acts in a selfish manner, and I had understood you to mean the "small minority" as a group acts in a selfish manner. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.