Personally, I'd love some kind of TV thread--because while I enjoy the occasional discussion of, say, Joan of Arcadia, I also when reading Natter or Bitches want ot catch up on the random...um...natter. And if I dont' watch JoA for a day or two, I'm not going to go back 300 posts and figure out where the discussion was. If there's a TV thread, I can just not read it until I've watched the episode.

But then, I suppose if I really cared, I'd mark the posts. So, whatever.

(Count me as another former Smallville thread person who ran away when all the talk seemed to be Stargate and Farscape, neither of which I've seen)

So the question is, what are we going to talk about? And I think the answer is: same damn thing we've been talking about. Everything.

Oh my goodness, I think I'm in love with Liese.

I think I'm in love with Liese.

Back off. I saw her first.

(Count me as another former Smallville thread person who ran away when all the talk seemed to be Stargate and Farscape, neither of which I've seen)

Wouldn't the same thing happen with a general TV thread? Every show will seem to be outnumbered by all the other shows.

I guess that I'm of the mind that as time goes on, any changes that need to be made will become apparent. Trying too hard to predict or guide our future is likely to be more frustrating than productive (much like herding cats). If OC (or any other show) chatter starts to overwhelm Natter, at that point we'll see a need for an OC thread. Currently, I think that cilantro wars are still taking up more space than any of the unthreaded shows.

Wouldn't the same thing happen with a general TV thread? Every show will seem to be outnumbered by all the other shows.

Only Smallville and Stargate are currently showing new episodes (thought the Farscape miniseries will be coming). The advantage would be that folks could swing by after a show airs and have a discussion - as happens now after Stargate.

But it's all moot until we get the board and technical issues squared away, I think.

At that point, I think somebody should just pitch the damn General TV Idea and we can jabber about it and take a vote. One reason it's the Dreaded General TV thread is because we always edge around it instead of just resolving the question and it recurs. That's why we've got voting.

But it should wait until we feel technically ready to launch a potentially busy new thread.

Joining the group that carries the "What Liese Said" signs.

I guess that I'm of the mind that as time goes on, any changes that need to be made will become apparent. Trying too hard to predict or guide our future is likely to be more frustrating than productive (much like herding cats).

Also, this. Though I want the cats to be time-shifting, like Anne described them once here, regarding some former discussion in this thread.

Oh, and while I'm agreeing with people, I'll also agree with those who say that everything is subject to technical considerations, first.

My vote, were there to be a vote, would be for several fairly specific TV show threads, covering the most popular shows. I actually like individual show threads.

I'm aware this is really dreadful in terms of proliferation, but what is the deal there? Are we just halting new threads until we're off the dedicated server? Cause I got the impression(quite possibly faulty) that we'd seriously consider opening some new threads after Angel was off the air.

I find this statement a little confusing. If we want to have a discussion about new threads, doesn't that take place here?

I was unsure if people were talking in general terms or if they were bringing up ideas here to see if there was support behind it. I have no problem with the former, but I do have problems with the latter.

I think test running something you want to propose through Bureau is a wrong use of the thread. If you really want something changed on the board, propose it. We can't have people only willing to propose things if they are pretty sure they'll pass. Well, I guess we can, I'll just go insane.

Not me. I'd much rather see some discussion go on well prior to anything being proposed. Because once a proposal is on the table, it sets the terms of the debate that takes place. We don't know what we want, or need, at this point. And honing in on that may well take more discussion than an up-down vote on a particular idea will allow. So then what? Do we go through a series of up-down debates, opening and closing Light Bulb each time? At what point do we run into the moratorium in that scenario? Really, I think we need to hash this out while we have the freedom to float and discard ideas along the way.

But then, I've always thought voting here was most beneficial as a way of ratifying changes, thus avoiding the BSC, or alternatively, moving things off the table that have gotten problematic. YVMV.

Personally, I think the appropriate place for this discussion is here. It needs to be a more focused discussion than Natter would allow. If there is a strong preference for keeping this thread clear, would it be possible to open Light Bulbs without a proposal on the table, perhaps for a set period of time, so that the discussion is on one place but still not tied to a particular end result?

We don't know what we want, or need, at this point. And honing in on that may well take more discussion than an up-down vote on a particular idea will allow.

Personally, I think the appropriate place for this discussion is here. It needs to be a more focused discussion than Natter would allow. If there is a strong preference for keeping this thread clear, would it be possible to open Light Bulbs without a proposal on the table, perhaps for a set period of time, so that the discussion is on one place but still not tied to a particular end result?

Yes. This.