I don't see any benefit to specifically outlining the only shows we are allowed to discuss in a particular thread, because as I see it it limits the cross-germination David spoke of, and (to my mind) forces us to police our discussion in unnecessary ways.
The main benefit that I can see is that if the shows are specifically outlined and/or the qualities that unite them clearly identifiable (ie, by genre or by premium cable), then someone who is not a current thread denizen can more easily figure out where certain conversations are taking place, hence they can join in the conversation much more readily.
I don't think we're talking about creating a thread without a guideline, Burrell. We're talking more about what that guideline should be.
Strega's had the only guideline I understand so far, primarily because it doesn't require me to think. Amych's isn't yours which isn't Frankenbuddha's. So we're up to at least four.
Your thread has Dirt. Does Amych's? Yours doesn't have Homicide, but it seems like it should, now that she mentioned it.
Okay, here's what Premium Cable is now:
[Slug] Discussions of HBO and Showtime original programming. Deadwood, Entourage, Big Love, Brotherhood, Weeds, Dexter, etc.
[Thread Header] A thread for the discussion of all HBO and Showtime original programming. This is NOT a general TV discussion thread.
The discussion started in Premium, with this post: SA "Premium Cable: The Cursing Costs Extra" Apr 4, 2007 12:24:01 pm PDT:
Got a question, folks. Can we talk about The Riches in here? I know it's not on Showtime or HBO, but it's the kind of programming that seems to fit with the other shows we *do* talk about in here.
erika responded (as only erika can):
I would do it...it's Hamsterdam. We can do what we want. But the chair didn't recognize my ass so I'll leave it to the fucking majority...you feel me?
Corwood:
Respect.
erika:
Thanks, dawg. Yeah, I see why SA would say that "The Riches" feels like an HBO show, what with its morally ambiguous, literal "born-criminal" leads and, I know I say this about shit all the time, but there are echoes of "The Wire's" "I got the gun. You got the briefcase," in their finding that Lawyer and Lawyer's Wife might be the biggest racket of them all. Thoughts?
SA:
Well, I'm kind of inclined to bring the whole panoply of FX shows in here, because Nip/Tuck, The Riches, Dirt and Rescue Me are far more similar in tone and subject matter to Rome, Dexter, Entourage, The Tudors, and The Wire than they are anything on network television. I mean, I don't want to make this a general tv thread, because I know as a community we've decided not to do that. But these are shows that are of a particular genre of its own, in a way. The more bad-ass, no-holds-barred, expletive-shouting, explicitly-fucking, pushing-the-envelope kind of programming. In other words, awesome.
Corwood:
I'm good with that as long as it includes The Shield, which I've never watched but been told by multiple people that I would love.
SA:
Yes, that too. I never watched it, as it didn't quite seem my taste. but it's another one of those that fits well into the scheme.
Jessica:
I like the idea too (and would definitely be discussing The Sheild) - it should probably be brought up in B'craxy, though, just so we don't leave anyone out of the loop.
SA:
That was going to be my next question. Do you think it's a vote type thing? Or just a minor policy change? Because I'm concerned we're going to get into that big television discussion again, whether this is the network-cable split or not.
erika:
It's fine with me, although it wasn't what I thought of initially...I didn't plan for Premium Cable's long Hiatiuses(Hiati? Okay, that's a little Sorkinly...all I need now is to push my chair really fast down a hallway. But I can't type and do that. So.) Actually, Corwood, I personally, cop junkie and all, don't care for The Shield...I think I need people to be a *little* heroic, sometimes. Funny thing to say as such a big Clay Davis fan, but I guess it's true.
Jessica:
I hope we don't need to vote on this. It seems like a minor enough change to make by bullshit consensus.
amych:
I'd rather avoid lightbulbs until we know it's taken off and it's a good fit -- start discussing the other cussing-and-fucking shows, and if the BS consensus sticks, we can worry about making it official later.
There are a few posts after that are semi-related, but they're less strictly on this topic, and seem to concentrate more on what the shows are like. I think. I'm drinking half-caf these days, so don't take my word for it; go read for yourselves.
SA started this current discussion here: SA "Bureaucracy 3: Oh, so now you want to be part of the SOLUTION?" Apr 4, 2007 3:48:42 pm PDT
Hey. So we folks that frequent Premium Blend would like to discuss FX shows in there as well as HBO and Showtime shows, because they run along the same thematic lines and lend themselves to mutual generalised discussion. Can we amend the slug? Or is this something we need to put to vote?
(continued...)
( continues...)
Some people would like to see the thread opened up to more shows, which include: The Shield, nip/tuck, Dirt, Rescue Me, The Riches.
I didn't include
Homicide
above, because I think that was just used as an example of a type of show. That is, I don't think it was proposed for inclusion, because it's been off the air for yonks. Also, that's about the time the discussion in Bureau turned Greek-to-me.
Some people do watch shows like
The Shield, Nip/Tuck, Dirt, Rescue Me, and The Riches,
and want to continue talking about them in Natter. I think these are people who don't frequent the Premium thread, but am not positive.
Some people are less invested, but like our lines to be brighter and more clear than sex and coarse language seem like they'll be.
I am not proposing anything, because I do not watch any of these shows, but I am making suggestions, because this conversation seems to be getting more and more circular.
SUGGESTIONS (take or leave any at your pleasure):
1. Bullshit consense to NOT thread-nanny those shows out of Premium until the end of May.
2. Temporarily amend the slug and header with something like:
Through May 31, 2007, we are experimenting, to see if discussion of The Shield, Nip/Tuck/Dirt, Rescue Me, and The Riches [and anything I missed] enhances or diminishes discussion in this thread.
3. Make an announcement in Press, that you're trying an experiment, so that people who watch those shows, but who don't usually post in Premium thread (and avoid Bureaucracy like the plague it is) know they can discuss those shows in some place other than Natter, if they so choose.
4. June 1, come back here and tell us if it's working or not, and why. Then we can see whether or not this change is advisable, or not. If it seems to work, we can decide whether or not it is bullshit consensable, or if it needs to be put to a vote, and/or if we need to have a bigger How-Do-We-Talk-TV-Again discussion/vote.
Reasons for doing this?
a) It'll end this discussion
b) Maybe a bright line will emerge
c) Maybe the shows won't work so well in practice and people will find it actually decreases the signal-to-noise ratio in the thread.
d) It's not like we'd actually be adding yet another thread; we'd just agree to not nanny discussion on those shows, for the next six or seven weeks, to see if it is workable or too confusing.
If
the shows are a good fit in the thread, perhaps that line will emerge from the discussion.
It seems like people want to discuss additional gritty shows in a thread that was built for shows that are often gritty. If that discussion has no major net effect on the board (for example, if it doesn't make people feel like those shows are now off limits in Natter, where some people prefer to discuss them) and it doesn't impede the discussion currently happening in Premium, then maybe we should let them.
I don't think we're going to know if it makes things better, worse, or just different-but-neutral, unless or until they try it out. Right now, everyone seems to be arguing hypotheticals.
If that discussion has no major net effect on the board (for example, if it doesn't make people feel like those shows are now off limits in Natter, where some people prefer to discuss them) and it doesn't impede the discussion currently happening in Premium, then maybe we should let them.
ita is talking about slippery slope, and given how frequently Boxed Set is invoked in this discussion, I'm not certain she's wrong. That's the net negative. As far as not talking about it in natter, I don't visit Premium but remember having my "Tudors" discussion shooed out of natter. Which is fine, but it's not a net gain in places to talk about something when we repurpose threads.
Which brings up my pet peeve about this discussion-- sorry, I'm starving and am waiting for caffeine, so I'm cranky-- let's drop the "policing" "nannying" "you're taking away my freedom" libertarian rhetoric. We're talking about moving discussion from natter/bitches to another thread. There's always going to be someone who wants to discuss it somewhere that's going to be asked to move it somewhere else. At b.org we vote on things and don't have unlimited thread creation, so at some level we're on board with control of discussion; we don't have to act like policing it is some kind of fascism. Ah, my coffee is here. Seacrest OUT!
everyone seems to be arguing hypotheticals
I think it's because everyone's arguing something different, and I am not a proponent of fuzziness (if anyone ever noticed).
I mean, I don't watch premium shows in real time, but I don't even see the similarity between Dirt and Deadwood, for instance. Dirt's fluff that's excited it can show doggy style and lesbian kissing. It's not actually gritty in the least.
Thematic? I totally don't get it.
Dirt's fluff that's excited it can show doggy style and lesbian kissing. It's not actually gritty in the least.
I'm sorry. I think one person's grit may well be another person's fluff. I didn't mean to get into semantics, here. I was using 'gritty' as another term for shows with blue language and/or a sexual focus. My kids are around, so I am avoiding the c&f language everyone else was using.
ita is talking about slippery slope, and given how frequently Boxed Set is invoked in this discussion, I'm not certain she's wrong. That's the net negative.
I hope this doesn't sound fresh -- it isn't meant to. My problem (and it's of my own making) is that I'm not retaining a lot of this discussion. My eyes read it, but my brain is not absorbing. Where does this slippery slope lead? (I'm not denying there could be one, I just honestly can't remember.)
Which brings up my pet peeve about this discussion-- sorry, I'm starving and am waiting for caffeine, so I'm cranky-- let's drop the "policing" "nannying" "you're taking away my freedom" libertarian rhetoric. We're talking about moving discussion from natter/bitches to another thread. There's always going to be someone who wants to discuss it somewhere that's going to be asked to move it somewhere else. At b.org we vote on things and don't have unlimited thread creation, so at some level we're on board with control of discussion; we don't have to act like policing it is some kind of fascism. Ah, my coffee is here. Seacrest OUT!
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to irritate your peeve. I used 'nannying' because I thought it was already at use in the discussion. I just meant let's not topic-moderate, but that doesn't seem like a good phrase, becauese our stompies really don't moderate. I didn't mean 'nannying' in any way that implied anything akin to fascism.
