I was wondering why this reply seemed so weird to me before realizing it was ultimately just saying, “but actually, what I originally said.”
I also didn’t explain why I thought my pedantic answer seemed more appropriate. I will do so here:
The instance admins are envisioned as [US] states because they hold general sway over a number of communities, in this metaphor “properties”. They have control, independent from over adjacent “states”. Community mods mirror “landlords” in that they own a “property”(community) and impose specific guidelines about how users, in this metaphor “tenants”, interact with the “property”. The “state”(instance) can arbitrate during disputes and generally won’t allow a “property” to apply guidelines that break their state laws.
Of course, the “tenants” are providing all the value. The “landlords” can also be replaced without much concern to the “tenants” unless the new landlord has new rules about interactions with the “property.” If the “landlord” has rules that are too annoying or even closes the “property”, the “tenants” might be annoyed but they can take all their stuff with them to a new “property” with different “landlords.” Maybe even move to a place in a new “state.”
If the guy with fridge says “no more fridge”, all the stuff in the house doesn’t get locked down.
I was wondering why this reply seemed so weird to me before realizing it was ultimately just saying, “but actually, what I originally said.”
I also didn’t explain why I thought my pedantic answer seemed more appropriate. I will do so here:
The instance admins are envisioned as [US] states because they hold general sway over a number of communities, in this metaphor “properties”. They have control, independent from over adjacent “states”. Community mods mirror “landlords” in that they own a “property”(community) and impose specific guidelines about how users, in this metaphor “tenants”, interact with the “property”. The “state”(instance) can arbitrate during disputes and generally won’t allow a “property” to apply guidelines that break their state laws.
Of course, the “tenants” are providing all the value. The “landlords” can also be replaced without much concern to the “tenants” unless the new landlord has new rules about interactions with the “property.” If the “landlord” has rules that are too annoying or even closes the “property”, the “tenants” might be annoyed but they can take all their stuff with them to a new “property” with different “landlords.” Maybe even move to a place in a new “state.”
If the guy with fridge says “no more fridge”, all the stuff in the house doesn’t get locked down.