My gut says this feels like making a rule for the sake of making a rule. Generally, I second most things that are proposed, even when I know I will vote against them. I second them just so that the conversation will be time-limited, but in this case, I need some convincing to even do that, Sean, because I can't see where the potential pros of this will outweigh the potential cons.

Well, I must away to work with ND now, so I will expound later.

Like I said, just a suggestion.

Out of curiosity, was Atlantic Canadians closed, or was it disappeared? I don't know if there's a need, but I just realized that Veronica Mars and Lost air on the same Canadian network here, so if they do show VM during the regular season we probably won't be seeing it at the same time as all of y'all.

You said we could close it, so we did.

Sue "Bureaucracy 3: Oh, so now you want to be part of the SOLUTION?" Apr 7, 2005 11:49:38 am PDT

We could reopen it if needs be.

We could reopen it if needs be.

That's really what I was wondering in case there's a need. And I'm really just thinking out loud. I don't know if there's any other Canadians who watch VM who'd use the thread besides Megan and myself, and we usually just chat about it over email anyway.

Okay, back from work.

The reason I suggest requiring a waiting period some time into a second season is not just to have rules for rules sake, but to avoid having these one season show bastards. It feels to me like everything new and shiny, people want to make into a new thread, but that for a lot of those, the shiny wears off, even before the first season is over. Discussion on The OC seemed to really peter off when the second season rolled around, and by the end, most of the initial viewers seemed to think it less shiny (but that's an outsider/lurker's impression, that could be very wrong).

Really, I'm just trying to find a compromise between proliferation, and creating a new thread for every new shiny lying by the side of the road. I think the suggestion is just asking for some proof of legs on a discussion before having it break off into a new thread.

Also, lest Eddie (I think it was...?) get the wrong impression, I'm not suggesting that just because a discussion has legs, that it automatically get its own thread. I'm also not married to the "2x10" threshold either, if that particular part of the proposal is causing it to sound more rules-for-rules sake.

I don't know, it's just a suggestion, not an issue or something. I'm trying to please all the people all the time. But I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that a discussion prove itself beyond just one season and a summer before handing it a thread of its own.

Anyway, so far I've received one of the four seconds it's going to require to even come up for a vote. Have we ever decided how long you have to collect four seconds? I misforget.

I second. And disagree for reasons I'm happy to share in lightbulb if it gets to that.

I can't even second. It's too rule-sy for me, and I fear the Burrell principle enough on this one. It's the type of proposal I see a bunch of people voting for, even though they personally don't want it, trying to make other people happy, and we'll regret it, later, particularly as we have a 6 month moratorium on things we vote on/in.

Without digging up examples, I think the Burrell rule has been sufficiently disproved. Further, by that logic, every proposal would get the requisite number of seconds. I think Sean's proposal is worth discussing if only as a way of taking the temperature of board sentiment on pro and anti, um, liferation, rather than having it peek in and out of every thread proposal discussion.

I'm agin it.

Don't we have to let the current Lightbulb discussion go to vote first before we second anything to discussion though?

Anyway, I think Jesse covered my objection pretty well.