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.

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.

Exactly. Let's get an idea of what the board wants (especially since we're in a "what now?" period) before making too many formal proposals.

One thing about Lightbulb, the proposal used to open it need not be the proposal that is put to vote.

Once again, discussions about where the board is going (FTR, I think it just goes, god knows it has changed plenty even while ME shows were airing. It doesn't seem broken to me.) don't bug me or seem out of place here, but questions like, "I think we should close all threads except Natter since everything falls under Natter anyway, would people support that?" really do.

Also pointing out that soon we won't need the Previously thread any more.

One thing about Lightbulb, the proposal used to open it need not be the proposal that is put to vote.

My problem with going into lightbulb is that once we do that, the clock is ticking. We might need more than three days to figure out what exactly needs to be proposed. If we could specially open Lightbulb for, say, 10 days to hash this out, I would be fine with moving the discussion.

I still think that a poll to figure out what shows people are watching/want to talk about would be a good first step; NovaChild's list could work. The amount of discussion a show currently generates is only a rough indicator of people's interest. I know I've taken my discussion of shows without their own threads to other forums, and I don't think I'm the only one. (Maybe I am, but that would make me sad.)

And seconding Fred Pete's point about Previously.