Hang on a minute...why should an affiliate have to agree with us on every matter of policy? So what if they don't run their site exactly the way SEN does (or is supposed to), if they make different choices with regards to what they will host and not host? If affiliateship means that they get a bit more traffic, and we get a bit more traffic, then it'll be a good thing. If the affiliateship also makes more resources readily available for the people of both sites, even better.

Besides, as far as I can tell, the differences are very minor. It's not as if Nibbits is a site about training horses to rape children. Affiliateship is kind of like friendship; of course there will be some differences of opinion (aren't people who simply agree with everything you say boring, and kind of creepy?), but a few differences shouldn't be taken as meaning that you can't get along. And you'd have to be a very petty individual to ditch a friend over something so minor as one highly restricted crack for a computer game.

And if one or two people happen to have had personal disputes with the other site in the past, once again, so what? On any site, there will always be one or two people who just have personality conflicts with the administration. I might tend to behave in a fairly innocuous manner here on SEN, but I've also been banned from forums run by a major corporation because I just couldn't get on with the local "big men" (haha...as if having moderation power over a purely recreational internet site could possibly make a nerd at a desk any less insignificant in the greater hierarchy of things. But that's another story). If the community could benefit from affiliateship, but is being held back because the people who had conflicts with the administration there just so happen to be highly ranked here, then the intelligent thing would be for them to get over it.

We like traffic; they like traffic. We like resources; they like resources. So let's share.

This is precisely how it should be thought of