Not sure what Nancy thinks, but for me it's "when this person speaks, others listen, with respect and often with deference". I don't think Nancy qualifies there, but I am not sure how to check that.

The question is, how would one measure this? The obvious metrics available are the number of comments and upvotes vs those for a similar comment by a regular of average status. Furthermore, if the replies are more respectful than average even in a disagreement, it is also an indication of higher status. This is hard to measure, of course. In the next order one would look at the timeline of comments and votes: higher-status posters are likely to attract more immediate reaction and an initial spike of upvotes.

There are, of course, exceptions. When Eliezer posts in favor of censorship, he gets downvoted more than average. In general, the status does not need to be the same across all topics, different regulars are considered experts in different areas. There is, of course, some halo effect spill-over between topics.

If someone here is interested in studying social dynamics on internet forums, they might shed further light on the issue or at least do some research.

At least one aspect is getting quoted, and that happens very rarely for me.