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
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!
Problem #1 with listing titles in thread headers is that
nobody ever remembers to update those things.
Boxed Set was still saying "Farscape, Smallville, and Due South" (and only the vaguest hint beyond there, to avoid becoming General TV) long after it was, in actuality, the thread where we talked about Stargate and Mansquito and various other things.
I like Hec's idea of quick-creation and pruning, although I wonder about getting the word out on such things. The real problem I'm talking about is
inertia,
which is legion and normal (no point in everybody being self-appointed police till there's a problem), but doesn't lead to efficient functioning.
I just don't see that the virtues of the clear bright lines and the negatives of the slippery slope are so significant that they outweigh (what I think is) the mandate to foster discussion.
From my perspective, the desire to impose structure by defining the thread and a fairly strict maintenance of that focus is more counter productive than letting the threads evolve. A fairly large and coherent group of Premium folks want to discuss some FX shows there.
The real positive effect of that is that there's more good discussion. The real negative effect is fairly abstract and nugatory - the thread definition gets fuzzier. Does it descend into a nattery mess of free for all discussion? I don't think so. Does it become a de facto General TV Thread. I don't think so.
So for those invested in maintaining the clear bright lines, I'm just wondering if you think it's more valuable to dissuade discussion to maintain those bright lines? Are you unconcerned with fostering discussion, thinking it will happen anyway? Or do you just have a strong, innate anti-thread proliferationist philosophy that wants to resist thread expantion or thread drift?
And I will state up front I think "they can discuss it in Natter" is a false option. Natter does not sustain focused in-depth discussion of any show.
