( 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.

---

Maybe a bright line will emerge

From where?

---

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.

---

Where does this slippery slope lead?

To where Frankenbuddha's already standing--a general TV thread. So far it looks like what's wanted is a thread where everyone inside knows why, and those outside don't.

Why not just list shows? What's wrong with that? I mean, I still think it should come down to a vote, because people already voted for one thing, but what's wrong with avoiding the judgment call?

---

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.

I really didn't mean to sound like I was criticizing you; I didn't even notice you using it. You were summarizing the discussion, which had adopted the rhetoric of nannying. (Frank Luntz would be proud.) Sorry about that, I try not to be that rude.

On to the slippery slope issue: here's my take. I don't know how I feel about overhauling our position on TV threads. I do know that every discussion we have, someone says that we're making too big a deal about some little thing, and every following discussion, that little thing is used as precedent. That's always my concern, and why I don't get bothered when "some little thing" is discussed to death. We're trying to discover our principles here-- is it ok to repurpose a thread six months later even though that purpose was discarded in the original voting process? Next time a TV thread gets proposed, will we have to consider that that thread will be repurposed in a few months when the denizens discover a common interest? I feel like the latter doesn't add to melting pot of the community, it subdivides it, but I could be wrong about that.

---

To where Frankenbuddha's already standing--a general TV thread. So far it looks like what's wanted is a thread where everyone inside knows why, and those outside don't.

Okay, I missed that Frank was standing there. Thanks, ita.

Why not just list shows? What's wrong with that?

I agree. I think maybe Strega mentioned that upstream, and it's why my suggestion suggested amending the slug and thread header to include show titles (and making a Press post) if we decided to experiment. I don't care if we don't experiment, by the way. I just thought it might prove a way past this point.

I mean, I still think it should come down to a vote, because people already voted for one thing, but what's wrong with avoiding the judgment call?

I'm not against a vote (nor am I against consensing or just droppig the subject, entirely). I just thought if they tried it out, they might either find it doesn't work well, or find out why/how it works (find a clear, bright line that most people can see as such).

I really didn't mean to sound like I was criticizing you;

You didn't, bon bon. I'm just trying to be extra careful in this thread, now. I've caused offense in the past and couldn't understand how, so now if I think I've caused it, I'd rather apologize and find out I didn't, then a month later find out I offended someone and didn't realize it.

I didn't even notice you using it. You were summarizing the discussion, which had adopted the rhetoric of nannying. (Frank Luntz would be proud.) Sorry about that, I try not to be that rude.

You're not rude. You're a voice of reason in a lot of these discussions and you were uncaffeinated and unfed, so you should get a prize.

Oh, well. Off to Google Frank Luntz.

---

Where does this slippery slope lead?

puts on swimsuit and slides - Whee!

---