Gunn: Well, how horrible is this thing? Lorne: I haven't read the Book of Revelations lately, but if I was searching for adjectives, I'd probably start there.

'Hell Bound'


Bureaucracy 3: Oh, so now you want to be part of the SOLUTION?  

A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.

Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych


Jessica - May 24, 2004 10:37:19 am PDT #715 of 10001
And then Ortus came and said "It's Ortin' time" and they all Orted off into the sunset

I unsubbed from Box Set because I don't watch Smallville or Stargate, and there's not enough Farscape discussion to make it worth my while. (I may re-sub when the miniseries airs.)

I like having general television natter in natter, where it is now. I'm not sure a general TV thread would "work" for me, for a number of reasons.

This discussion could hopefully serve the same purpose that Betsy's withdrawn proposal would have served, had it gone to vote and passed. But I don't know that it needs a thread, as much as we need to have the discussion, and it needs to happen in one spot.

Buy why should it be in here? If we're NOT talking about creating a new thread, what makes this not natter?


Lyra Jane - May 24, 2004 10:39:56 am PDT #716 of 10001
Up with the sun

Just throwing things out here...

How many TV threads do we think we want? I'd rather start knowing X new threads was the (bullshit consensus) limit and try to come up with the best way to use that X, than to have 45 show threads proposed and try to whittle down from that.

In the past, we haven't had more than three shows with their own thread at once. Does that model work? Or should we do three (or four, or two) with their own threads, plus another three (or whatever) for genres (i.e., reality, cop shows, soap operas)?

Also, I think we should do a poll to help decide what individual show threads would be included in the proposal, so we have the best sense of what people are watching.


amych - May 24, 2004 10:42:37 am PDT #717 of 10001
Now let us crush something soft and watch it fountain blood. That is a girlish thing to want to do, yes?

Ehh, I don't think we should have a proposal.

I don't want a referendum on Boxed Set - it works for the people there, and not for the people who don't go there.

As for new shows, all the polls and abstract projections in the world aren't going to do a thing for us. In the fall, either there will be some show that so many people love that there's an urge to give it a thread, or there won't.


Topic!Cindy - May 24, 2004 11:11:28 am PDT #718 of 10001
What is even happening?

Don't you think that discussion more properly belongs ... well .. not here? You can make a proposal for a general TV thread and then have a finitely time-bounded discussion in Lightbulbs on those very topics.

I don't necessarily want to propose a general TV thread. I'm wondering about our direction. We have more than one thread for more than one show (FF and WF), that never even got a full season, but it seems to me there are a lot of shows people watch regularly. I know they're not all talk-about shows, though.

I'd like to know shows Buffistas are watching that are shows they'd also like to talk about. I know some, but even then I only know they get talked about in Natter. There are some shows I watch that I would talk about in Natter, but would never (personally) need/want a thread for them. It may turn out that there's no need to propose any changes, so why open up Lightbulb without a clear goal?


§ ita § - May 24, 2004 11:12:41 am PDT #719 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

why open up Lightbulb without a clear goal?

Because I think the discussion does not belong here.


Lyra Jane - May 24, 2004 11:15:32 am PDT #720 of 10001
Up with the sun

I feel that if everything goes into Natter, a lot of people who can keep up with (a) show thread(s) but not Natter are going to grow apart from the community. I know I would. For example, I'd probably post in an O.C. thread, but it's unlikely I'll pick through Natter to discuss it.

Could we set up a nonbinding poll just to get a sense of what people are watching/want to discuss? I think Cindy's making a smart distinction.


§ ita § - May 24, 2004 11:18:05 am PDT #721 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

I feel that if everything goes into Natter

You mean if the status quo is maintained? Or do you foresee increased discussion traffic?


Jessica - May 24, 2004 11:18:53 am PDT #722 of 10001
And then Ortus came and said "It's Ortin' time" and they all Orted off into the sunset

One part of me can't see us ever having a demand for a single-show thread that's not ME-related. I mean, if it were just a matter of how many people watch, we'd have an OC thread.

OTOH, we did used to have SV, DS and Farscape threads. So I don't know.


Lyra Jane - May 24, 2004 11:20:01 am PDT #723 of 10001
Up with the sun

I believe that the lack of show-specific threads to discuss programs currently on the air would lead to increased traffic in Natter.


Jessica - May 24, 2004 11:21:12 am PDT #724 of 10001
And then Ortus came and said "It's Ortin' time" and they all Orted off into the sunset

I feel that if everything goes into Natter, a lot of people who can keep up with (a) show thread(s) but not Natter are going to grow apart from the community.

I think having many individual threads splits the community much more than having a few comprehensive ones.

I believe that the lack of show-specific threads to discuss programs currently on the air would lead to increased traffic in Natter.

But we don't have any show-specific threads now, other than Buffy, Angel, and Firefly. What's going to change?