I'm really confused because I can't tell if you're casting yourself as the gatekeeper or not and, for either side, what's being argued? I think I swooped in on some drama when I was killing time at work and don't have full context, so there are some side points that I don't quite get.

As for pushing through the growth points, I don't doubt that hubski has hit them, but if that group of 50 has been roughly the same group for months or years, then I'd have to argue that you haven't moved through it since there's been no growth, just lateral movements to new social problems for similarly sized communities.

Lastly, I'm not sure the hubski structure fosters politeness. To me it seems much better at fostering consciousness which, in you and in many, seems to manifest as politeness. The difference being, if new group of 50 came here with the intention of being impolite, they could use the social tools of hubski to create that atmosphere. The catch is that they would have to choose to create that atmosphere with a conscious effort to build that rude community. It would be difficult, but it could be done.

It isn't, I would guess, because there's never a large enough conscious effort. Once new individuals become conscious of the current community they seem to feel self consciousness and have to choose to decide how to act - conforming politeness, rebellious trolling, anarchic self direction, or meta.

At this point, though, we're using the word hubski for two different things - the platform and the community. All I'm saying is the platform seems more flexible in the face of growth than the community.