I have been here for quite a while, lurking for a long time, registering because I got passionate about a concept, and now routinely commenting and even posting diaries. Never made it to the Recommended List yet, but that is irrelevant. I do enjoy the Trusted User status, because I can see what outrages others here. Anyway, I have a short list of my take on the individuals here. Please read more if you are interested.
I find several stereotypes of people here. Here is my list, and, if anyone can improve or illuminate it, I would be very pleased for you to share your thoughts. First and foremost, except for a specific group that I will identify in a bit, I find everyone to be of good intention, with ideas that they, at least, think that are good, and wishing no ill to any individual. These are noble properties.
Group One: Hardcore political folks. Obviously, Kos is the archtype for that. Nothing at all wrong with it, since it is the raison d'etre for the site. I have a very political diary in the works, just in the mood to say something different tonight for a break in the sad political news today.
Group Two: Single issue folks. For them, only their passion is important. I am not marginalizing them, for often they bring nuances to things that would not otherwise be known. This is an important part of the community, and should never be Troll Rated unless they just go over the top. If you see a diary from a contributor that you already know what will contain, and are not interested, just scroll down. These folks are important, but have tunnel vision. Well, who is perfect?
Group Three: The generalists. They pretend to know everything about everything. I guess that I am one of those, but I certainly do not mind having my ideas challenged. I have removed posts because of comments received that made me think better of what I said. I think that we need generalists because they sometimes have off the wall ideas that are acutally good.
Group Four: The economists. Jerome and bonddad stand out in my mind. Hard data, cogent analysis, and good suggestions. Bad news if we lose those folks. Follow the money, and these folks hold the flashlight.
Group Five: The newbies. Lord love them. Like any community, our members age and die, or go off line. Rightiousgirl is gone, and we miss her. Karateexplosions only comments now and then, and we miss him. (I love his Kat pictures). These folks have to be replaced with new folks or we, as a group will die. Please comment positively and often, where appropriate, for new folks joining. They need encouragement. If they are interested and good, they will linger. If not, they will go away. But if we do not encourage promising new folks, why would they want to stay?
Group Six: The pros. You know, mcjoan, hunter, kos, and the others. Not going anywhere, and we appreciate them. They are necessary for order and continuity.
Group Seven: The fun folks. You know, the ones who do the Marine Life series, the ones who talk about literature, the ones who talk about the founders, the ones who talk about diverse subjects that are not political, but important for thinking persons to consider. Life is not all politics, and I think that this community has room for eclectic thought. At least one of them talks about gardening and wild food.
Group Eight: The Trolls. Sometimes they are difficult to identify, but I have sniffed out a few characteristics that I will share. They are usually negative. Often they advocate a given issue or candidate with little logical backup material. Often their writing is misleading in that it purports to support an issue or candidate while acutally doing the opposite. At other times they just say outrageous things with no support. Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Well, this is my simple-minded analysis of the Kos community. I am sure that readers, if interested, can refine and elaborate on it with better analyses of the catagories, or new catagories as well. I will state this: I feel priveledged to be here. I hope that other do, too.
Warmest regards, Doc.