I don't think it's a metaphor. I think it's a fact. There are people whose posts generally make me roll my eyes, and people whose posts I generally pay attention to. I'm sure I'm each of those people for others. It's just the way human interaction works.

Now, what's slightly more dicey is the idea (and I don't think anyone seriously thinks this -- and please someone correct me if I'm wrong) that there is uniform social capital across the group. There is no one who "everyone" thinks is one way or another.

Something I meant to say before and I see now I did not:

I want to give real props to Allyson, she's taken her lumps on The Jen Thing with real fortitude these past few days. She wound up being an example and handled it with class.

Part of the hurt caused in that incident was not only that a crappy thing was said, but that nobody called her on it. There weren't a dozen "whoah, that was out of line" posts-- that lack was an important part of the straw that broke the camels back. The screw up was a shared one.

This isn't voteable, I know that. But I'd like us to make an effort to be considerate of each others feelings-- even those of (and maybe ESPECIALLY those of) the people who work our nerves.

There is no one who "everyone" thinks is one way or another.

I thought it was a universal that folks thought Sean's eating habits are dicey. And everybody thinks you're a cowgirl.

And I'm an Empress! And msbelle is the nicest!

people who have supposedly expended large amounts of social capital in one incident or another have not (that I've seen) had their standing raised or lowered permanently, or significantly changed others opinions of them

I had social capital explained differently to me once upon a time, and it has been immeasureably helpful to me, so I'm gonna share.

X ,Y and Z are friends. They do things for one another all the time. Every time X does something for Y and Z, he's depositing into his bank account with each of them. It goes the same for Y and Z. Then Y and Z have a little spat. They each let it go, though, because they've done so much with/for one another over the years that it just doesn't stack up against the capital they've got deposited with one another.

And then X goes crazy. That damned X went off his rocker and he does something really bad. He apologizes the next day, though, and Y and Z let it go. And they let the next thing go, and the next thing go, and so on, until one day, Z realizes that he's done, fed up, tired of it. There's no more capital. The good that X has done over the years no longer outweighs the crazy. Z drops out of the relationship with X. X apologizes to Y, says he's over that, he's back. That gains him a little capital again, or maybe Y's just a little more long-suffering, and the two stay friends for awhile... and then one day, X sneaks in and shaves her cats.

And it's all over.

One, two, even ten incidents over the course of a relationship are pretty much covered by interest. The value of the relationship doesn't go markedly up or down. It's not until the relationship hurts more than it heals that you notice measurable differences; that leads to Y and Z cutting the ties. That line is in a different place for everyone.

I hope no one is annoyed by this explanation. The idea of social capital bugged me when I first heard of it, but when it was explained to me like this, I found it a handy construct for thinking about the way the world works. It also helped me let go more easily, be more like Z than Y. It's not my fault X went crazy. I gave X lots of chances. It's okay to let go because X is hurting me and that's not okay.

Huh. I think you (edit: you = Jesse)might be saying what I'm kind of trying to say, but different, and not at all really.

The problem with the social capital concept is, as you point out, that it's not uniform. A particular incident will not only not cause people to react in equal ways, it will not cause people to react in equal amounts.You've had posts cause you to change your opinions about posters significantly. Those same posts may not have even registered for somebody else.

Social capital is useful as a descriptor, but it loses efficiency because there can't be a set value on it.

Thanks, Deena. It does help to reinforce that it's a way of describing normal, healthy give and take, not advocating for a Reign of Heathers.

I'm bugged by the cat-shaving. Because shaved cats can be some fugly animals.

The problem with the social capital concept is, as you point out, that it's not uniform.

That's not a problem. As noted way upthread, the point is that it isn't uniform. Your social capital bank with me is different than it is with Kristin, because I've spent more time with you, and I've seen you drive people to the airport at 5:30 in the morning.

I'm bugged by the cat-shaving. Because shaved cats can be some fugly animals.

Shaved maybe, but naturally hairless I've grown to like from the Sphinx cat in the Mission bookstore.