Thanks, SDAI-Tech1. Your post stands out in contrast to a lot of the negative posts lately, and come to think of it, I remember predicting that you'd write another epitaph for the Zone. You've suprised me with your positivity.

The balance I've always perceived has been between the creativity and intellectual breadth you get from as much anarchy as is tolerable; versus the security and surface placidity you get from a highly-regulated environment. So I have some reservations about your call for balance defined as eschewing extremes--I don't want the Zone to become bland, and to have to replace the logo with a happy-face. Nevertheless, between those two extremes, we seem to have been experiencing a little too much anarchy recently.

I'm reading a book titled "The Future of the Internet (and how to stop it)", and it explores some concepts relevant to the Zone. It describes "generative systems" such as the Internet and the PC (and the astounding offspring they spawned when they got hitched, The Internet Revolution That Changed The World). A generative system follows an arc that begins with wide-open participation, experimentation, volunteerism, and a community ethic that arises naturally from collaboration. While still uncontrolled and unregulated, a generative system is an engine for innovation, and notably has a tendency to produce more generative systems.

In formal terms, this is the "generative pattern":

1. An idea originates in a backwater.
2. It is ambitious but incomplete. It is partially implemented and released anyway, embracing the ethos of the procrastination principle.
3. Contribution is welcomed from all corners, resulting in an influx of usage.
4. Success is achieved beyond any expectation, and a higher profile draws even more usage.
5. Success is cut short: "There goes the neighborhood" as newer users are not conversant with the idea of experimentation and contribution, and other users are prepared to exploit the openness of the system to undesirable ends.
6. There is movement toward enclosure to prevent the problems that arise from the system's very popularitiy.

op cit page 99; transcribed by hand, typos are my responsibility

You might say that generative systems contain the seeds of their own destruction. We've seen it in the case of the Net: You get newbies who look for opportunities to profit from exploiting and, sometimes, abusing the system. You get spam. You get viruses and malware and spyware. You get phishing sites.

As a result, there's a backlash, as abuses of the system's openness lead to calls for locking it down and controlling it and providing more security and comfort for its mainstream users. In the case of the PC, you get proposals to lock it down and make it difficult to install software from other than "approved" sources. You get "appliances" with a fixed range of features, that trade flexibity--and generativity--for security. On the Net half of that equation you get "Web services" like GMail that offer hassle-free email, but at the cost of surrendering control to a third party and agreeing to their standards (such as those embodied in their spam filters).

If there's a sufficient backlash of fear at the consequences of the system's opennness, the system's generativity will end up strangled.

As I noted, generative systems beget generative systems, and if you look within the Internet Revolution Etc. system, in a clean-well lighted corner you'll find discussion forums, potentially the most generative of systems. Wikipedia (discussed heavily in the book) is a variation on the theme of user-generated content, and Wikipedia's experience demonstrates that a generative system can be maintained despite the negative behaviors that inevitably arise around step 5 in the generative pattern.

And so we arrive back at the HabitableZone. Its history is a very close match to the generative pattern, and we're at the final step: Calls have arisen to lock down the HabitableZone and make it "safe".

Without knowing the term "generative system", I've long recognized that the HabitableZone has certain rare properties that arise directly from maximizing openness and participation. That's why it's a real community, something that much bigger and more "professionally" run discussion sites cannot claim. In my long bloody battle against the demands for more control and regulation of the Zone, I've been defending the Zone's generative properties.

I expect that after I implement the proposed changes, traffic at the Space/Science board will increase, but I'm not confident that stricter moderation will produce a more vibrant and engaging board. Time will have to tell. I'm hedging my bet on generativeness by distancing the other boards a bit from SS, and I intend to defend their generativity the same way I've defended the Zone as a whole lo these many years.

So, Tech, we may have somewhat different opinions on what constitutes "habitability", but we both want what's best for the Zone. I promise to maintain the part that remains under my control as a place where eccentrics are welcome, even those who write wish-fulfillment fantasies about being a RightWing Warrior, and use winkies.