[leucifer]

I just read a really interesting article about why a group is its own worst enemy. A few things reminded me of IT.

"The likelihood that any unmoderated group will eventually get into a flame-war about whether or not to have a moderator approaches one as time increases."

The place that was founded on open access had too much open access, too much openness. They couldn't defend themselves against their own users. The place that was founded on free speech had too much freedom. They had no way of saying "No, that's not the kind of free speech we meant."

But that was a requirement. In order to defend themselves against being overrun, that was something that they needed to have that they didn't have, and as a result, they simply shut the site down.

The second thing you have to accept: Members are different than users. A pattern will arise in which there is some group of users that cares more than average about the integrity and success of the group as a whole. And that becomes your core group, Art Kleiner's phrase for "the group within the group that matters most."

The third thing you need to accept: The core group has rights that trump individual rights in some situations. This pulls against the libertarian view that's quite common on the network, and it absolutely pulls against the one person/one vote notion. But you can see examples of how bad an idea voting is when citizenship is the same as ability to log in.

Is this post too long?

[BIRD33]

First two I don't think pertain to here.We have moderators(the only friction is one sucks a dick) and we don't have 100% free speech.

The third thing I think is certainly in play here.Some people based on relationships or time spent here feel they should be more privileged then others.

[Anhil8tor]

what does that have to do with leu destroying a marriage?